This bill requires the Secretary of Defense to suspend or revoke security clearances and eligibility for access to classified information for retired or separated members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees who engage in lobbying on behalf of certain Chinese entities. It ties the sanction to two named sources: the DoD report under section 1260H of the FY2021 NDAA and the Treasury Department’s Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List.
The measure matters because it converts post‑government employment choices into a trigger for losing classified‑access eligibility. That has immediate implications for hiring by foreign entities and for private contractors that rely on former DoD personnel as subject‑matter experts, while also raising procedural, legal, and implementation questions for DoD and oversight committees.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to suspend or revoke security clearances or eligibility for classified access for former DoD personnel who lobby for entities identified on two government lists of Chinese military‑linked companies. It does this by referencing the Lobbying Disclosure Act’s definitions to identify covered activity.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to retired or separated members of the Armed Forces and former DoD civilian employees who engage in lobbying activities or lobbying contacts as defined under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It also affects organizations that hire those individuals, and agencies that rely on their cleared access as contractors or consultants.
Why It Matters
By creating an explicit administrative sanction tied to post‑service employment, the bill changes the calculus for ex‑DoD personnel and their recruiters: clearance eligibility becomes a lever to deter engagement with designated Chinese military‑linked firms. For compliance teams, the bill links personnel policies to two specific government lists and to federal lobbying rules.
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 categorical mechanism: if a former DoD service member or civilian employee engages in lobbying on behalf of certain Chinese entities, the Secretary of Defense must suspend or revoke that person’s security clearance or eligibility to receive classified information. The condition applies to “retired or separated” personnel and former civilian DoD employees; the statute is framed as mandatory rather than discretionary.
Which entities trigger the rule is defined by reference to two external lists: the entity list that the Secretary of Defense compiles in the most recent report under section 1260H of the FY2021 NDAA (10 U.S.C. 113 note) identifying Chinese military companies, and the Department of the Treasury’s Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List. Those references make the scope of covered companies dependent on periodic agency list updates rather than on new definitions written into this bill.The bill borrows the Lobbying Disclosure Act’s definitions of “lobbying activities” and “lobbying contact” to identify covered conduct, but it expressly removes one enumerated exception from the LDA’s lobbying‑contact definition (clause (iv) of paragraph (8)(B)(iv) of section 3).
The bill also contains a limited waiver pathway: the Secretary of Defense may waive the prohibition in up to 180‑day increments if the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States.Taken together, the statute converts post‑government lobbying conduct into a ground for administrative revocation of access to classified information, ties enforcement to existing agency lists and federal lobbying definitions, and creates a short, supervised waiver route. The text does not establish a separate adjudicative procedure, notice period, or appeal process within the bill itself; it instead places the initial enforcement and waiver authority with the Secretary of Defense while making Congress the recipient of waiver certifications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies to retired or separated members of the Armed Forces and former DoD civilian employees and requires the Secretary of Defense to ‘‘suspend or revoke’’ their security clearance or eligibility for access to classified information.
Covered entities are those named in the most recent DoD report required by section 1260H of the FY2021 NDAA (10 U.S.C. 113 note) as Chinese military companies, and those on the Treasury Department’s Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List.
The bill adopts the Lobbying Disclosure Act’s definitions of ‘‘lobbying activities’’ and ‘‘lobbying contact’’ to identify prohibited conduct, but it removes clause (iv) of paragraph (8)(B)(iv) from that lobbying‑contact definition.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the prohibition for periods not to exceed 180 days, but only after certifying to the congressional defense committees that the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States.
The prohibition is imposed ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of law,’’ signaling that this statute is intended to override conflicting legal authorities governing clearance eligibility or employment rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the short title ‘‘Restricting Ex‑Vetted Officials from Knowledge Exploitation Act’’ or the ‘‘REVOKE Act.’
Mandatory suspension or revocation of clearance
Creates the core command: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law,’’ the Secretary of Defense shall suspend or revoke a security clearance or eligibility for access to classified information for any retired or separated member of the Armed Forces or civilian DoD employee who engages in covered lobbying activity. The choice of the words ‘‘shall suspend or revoke’’ makes this a mandatory administrative action rather than a discretionary option in the statute itself; DoD will need implementing procedures to carry out suspensions and revocations consistent with other personnel security rules.
What lobbying triggers the sanction
Defines the triggering activity as lobbying activities or lobbying contacts ‘‘for or on behalf of’’ entities that appear on two government lists: the DoD report under section 1260H of the FY2021 NDAA and the Treasury Non‑SDN Chinese Military‑Industrial Complex Companies List. By referencing external, periodically updated lists, the bill delegates the identification of covered companies to executive agencies rather than attempting to list companies in the statute.
Limited waiver for national security reasons
Authorizes the Secretary to waive the prohibition for periods not to exceed 180 days if the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the waiver is in the national security interest. The provision creates a short, case‑by‑case exception that requires notification to Congress but does not lay out standards for when national security will justify a waiver or how repeated waivers would be handled.
Definitions and cross‑references
Imports the Lobbying Disclosure Act’s definitions of ‘‘lobbying activities’’ and ‘‘lobbying contact’’ but eliminates a specific enumerated exception in the LDA definition of lobbying contact (clause (iv) of paragraph (8)(B)(iv)). It also defines ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ by reference to title 10, section 101(a). Those cross‑references simplify drafting but create interpretive reliance on external statutes and agency lists.
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
- Department of Defense and national security policymakers — Gains a clearer statutory lever to limit declared lobbying relationships that the executive branch deems risky and to reduce the presence of certain ex‑personnel in roles giving adversarial access to U.S. expertise.
- Domestic defense contractors and U.S. firms that compete with listed Chinese entities — May reduce transfer of inside knowledge and personnel recruitment by foreign competitors, preserving competitive advantages.
- Congressional defense committees — Receives explicit briefing authority and visibility through the waiver certification requirement, increasing legislative oversight on exceptions for classified‑access policy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retired and separated DoD service members and former DoD civilian employees — Face loss of clearance eligibility (and thus reduced marketability for cleared consulting and contracting) for engaging in covered lobbying activities, potentially limiting post‑government career options.
- Private employers, lobbyists, and foreign entities — Organizations that would hire or engage former DoD personnel to lobby for covered Chinese entities will lose access to cleared experts and may face reputational and recruitment costs.
- Department of Defense and personnel security adjudicators — Will absorb administrative burden to identify covered conduct, coordinate with Treasury and DoD list managers, process suspensions/revocations, and manage waiver requests; absent new funding or procedure, this increases operational workload and legal exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill frames a clear security goal — prevent individuals with recent DoD expertise from lobbying on behalf of government‑designated Chinese military‑linked firms — but does so by restricting post‑government employment and administrative clearance eligibility in ways that raise constitutional, statutory, and workforce‑policy trade‑offs: safeguarding classified knowledge versus preserving individuals’ ability to earn a living, and delegating scope decisions to external lists while offering limited procedural protections for affected persons.
The bill ties enforcement to two moving parts it does not itself control: agency lists and the Lobbying Disclosure Act’s definitions. That delegation simplifies statutory drafting but shifts key scope determinations to DoD and Treasury list management and to how courts interpret the LDA cross‑references.
Practically, the set of covered companies can change with list updates, which creates compliance uncertainty for former personnel and employers who must track evolving lists to know whether conduct is prohibited.
The statute provides no internal process for notice, investigation timelines, pre‑revocation procedural protections, or appeals; it also does not describe how DoD should treat conduct that began before enactment. The ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of law’’ language is broad and invites legal challenge about conflicts with other statutes or regulations governing clearance adjudications, privacy, or employment.
Finally, the waiver mechanism gives the Secretary a short, prospective escape valve but leaves unanswered criteria for national security justification and whether repeated or serial waivers are permissible, heightening the risk that the waiver pathway becomes the de facto standard rather than a narrowly applied exception.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.