The Defending International Security by Restricting Unacceptable Partnerships and Tactics Act (DISRUPT Act) would require the executive branch to develop a whole-of-government strategy to disrupt growing cooperation among four U.S. adversaries: the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It directs four Cabinet departments—State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce—to create adversary-alignment task forces, appoint points of contact, and report on progress.
The bill also assigns the Director of National Intelligence a 60-day mandate to assess current bilateral and multilateral cooperation among these adversaries and the risks it creates, and it requires a strategic two-year plan outlining methods to disrupt, deter, and prepare for such alignment, including strengthening economic statecraft and deterrence in key theaters.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes interagency task forces on adversary alignment within 60 days and requires periodic interagency meetings and annual reporting. The DNI will deliver a 60-day bilateral/multilateral cooperation report, and a 180-day strategic approach plan detailing methods to disrupt adversary cooperation and bolster deterrence.
Who It Affects
Federal departments (State, Defense, Treasury, Commerce) and the intelligence community, plus allies and partners that participate in information sharing and joint deterrence efforts; defense industrial base and war-planning communities will be involved in planning and execution.
Why It Matters
Formalizes interagency coordination to counter four adversaries’ growing cooperation, aiming to constrain their global footprint, protect U.S. interests, and deter simultaneous threats across multiple theaters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The DISRUPT Act starts by laying out findings about how China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are deepening bilateral and multilateral ties across diplomacy, economics, and defense. It identifies specific areas where cooperation could strengthen those adversaries—such as weapons transfers, dual-use technology, joint military activities, and coordinated messaging—and explains why that cooperation could threaten U.S. security and economic tools.
The bill then pushes the executive branch to act by creating four interagency task forces (one in State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce) focused on adversary alignment. Each task force must include experts on each adversary, ensure security clearances, and appoint a point of contact to coordinate across agencies.
Within six months of enactment, these task forces must report on the impact of adversary alignment and propose organizational changes to improve response readiness.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Not later than 60 days after enactment, four departments must establish adversary-alignment task forces with a designated point of contact.
Each task force must include subject-matter experts on China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and have access to necessary security clearances.
Within 180 days, the task forces must produce a report evaluating the impact of adversary alignment and recommending organizational changes.
The DNI must submit a classified 60-day report detailing current bilateral and multilateral cooperation and the risks it creates.
Within 180 days, the administration must deliver a strategic approach report outlining methods to disrupt adversary alignment and bolster deterrence across priority theaters.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the Defending International Security by Restricting Unacceptable Partnerships and Tactics Act, or DISRUPT Act. It creates the formal name that will be used in congressional and interagency references.
Findings
This section enumerates the adversaries and the reasoning behind the bill. It ties each country’s status as a foreign adversary to risk assessments in defense and intelligence communities and catalogs forms of cooperation—military, economic, and informational—that could threaten U.S. security, including weapons transfers, dual-use tech sharing, joint exercises, and disinformation. It also notes how these adversaries exploit gaps in international institutions and sanctions regimes, and it highlights the potential for simultaneous conflict in multiple theaters if alignment strengthens.
Statement of Policy
This section articulates the policy goal: disrupt the most dangerous aspects of adversary alignment, constrain expansion of their footprint, and prepare for possible multi-theater conflict. It ties success to sanctions and export controls as tools to illuminate and deter cooperation and to share information with allies who share U.S. objectives.
Task Forces and Reports
This section creates interagency task forces within the State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce departments. Each task force must include experts on the four named adversaries, reflect all core departmental functions, and have personnel with necessary security clearances. The section also requires a 60-day DNI-led report on adversary cooperation, a 180-day strategic approach to disrupt alignment, and a framework for quarterly interagency meetings to review progress and next steps.
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
- The Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce gain a formal mechanism and leadership structure to coordinate policy on adversary alignment and threats.
- Allied governments and partner militaries receive clearer intelligence sharing, coordinated deterrence, and a framework for joint actions.
- The U.S. intelligence community benefits from a structured interagency process to assess and respond to evolving adversary cooperation.
- U.S. war-planning communities gain access to updated analyses and planning tools aligned with the strategic approach.
- The defense industrial base and allied defense producers can align procurement and production planning with deterrence priorities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies will incur costs to staff and maintain the four task forces, produce regular reports, and ensure security clearances.
- Intelligence and security programs may bear higher scrutiny and workload due to classified assessments and interagency data sharing.
- Defense contractors and suppliers could face new compliance and reporting requirements tied to sanctions and export-control enforcement.
- Increased interagency coordination could slow certain bureaucratic processes or create implementation frictions across departments.
- Budget and resource allocations will need to be justified to Congress for sustained interagency operations and deterrence programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a formal, highly interagency approach can stay nimble enough to counter fast-moving adversary alignment without becoming burdened by process and classification constraints.
The bill creates a dense interagency framework with significant reporting and coordination requirements. The main policy trade-off is between rapid, flexible action and the formal, often slow-to-change processes of multiple federal departments.
The reliance on annual or periodic reports raises questions about how findings translate into concrete policy moves, especially given the classified nature of much of the work. Funding sources and long-term sustainability for expanded sanctions, export controls, and deterrence initiatives are not specified, leaving implementation to subsequent appropriations debates.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.