H.R. 6447, the Combatting China’s Pilfering of Intellectual Property Act, would impose targeted sanctions on persons operating in Chinese sectors where a pattern of significant IP theft against U.S. rights holders has occurred. Sanctions would include asset blocking and prohibitions on visa issuance or entry for designated individuals.
The bill also extends to a visa-restriction regime that blocks senior CCP officials, their families, cabinet members, and active PLA members from entering the United States, with a waiver mechanism and annual certification provisions. The act would require a presidential report within 180 days identifying every person meeting the criteria for sanctions and would authorize termination of sanctions if China stops engaging in IP theft.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mike Kennedy (R-UT) and is introduced in the 119th Congress.
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes sanctions on designated Chinese persons in sectors tied to IP theft of U.S. IP, including asset blocking and immigration restrictions. It also creates visa-entry restrictions for specified Chinese officials and their families, with a waiver mechanism.
Who It Affects
Targets Chinese individuals and entities meeting the criteria, U.S. IP owners and licensees, and U.S. government agencies administering sanctions and visa controls.
Why It Matters
Establishes a cross-cutting policy tool that links economic penalties to immigration controls to deter IP theft, with reporting and termination provisions to maintain accountability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CCP IP Act creates a framework to deter and penalize the theft of U.S. intellectual property by actors tied to China. It uses the Executive Branch’s sanctions authority to block assets and restrict entry for designated individuals in sectors of China’s economy where IP theft against U.S. rights holders has been observed.
A central feature is Section 2, which defines who can be sanctioned, what sanctions apply, and how implementation should occur. The sanctions leverage the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to block property and prohibit transactions, mirroring typical EEA-style authorities, and extend to the revocation or denial of visas and entry documentation for those identified.
A waiver mechanism allows the President to exempt cases on national security grounds, provided a justification is supplied, and sanctions can be terminated if the President certifies that China no longer pursues IP theft against U.S. interests. A critical procedural element is the 180-day reporting requirement that lists every person meeting the criteria for sanctions, improving transparency and congressional oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill targets individuals and entities in Chinese sectors with a pattern of significant IP theft against U.S. rights holders.
Sanctions include asset blocking under IEEPA and visa/entry restrictions for designated individuals.
A waiver mechanism lets the President grant case-by-case exemptions in national security interests.
A 180-day report to Congress identifies all designated persons and justifies the sanctions.
Sanctions can be terminated if the President certifies China has ceased IP theft against U.S. interests.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section establishes the act’s citation as the Combatting China’s Pilfering of Intellectual Property Act (the CCP IP Act). It signals the bill’s overall aim: to deter and respond to IP theft involving China through sanctions and related measures.
Imposition of Sanctions Related to IP Theft
Section 2 creates the core sanctions framework. It authorizes the President to impose asset blocking and immigration restrictions on persons operating in Chinese sectors where a pattern of significant IP theft against U.S. IP exists or where such IP is obtained through theft by others. It details penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, sets implementation authority to the President, and establishes a waiver process, termination provisions, a reporting requirement, and a definitions subsection that clarifies terms like “United States person.” The section ties the sanctions to the threshold of “pattern of significant theft” and provides the framework for enforcement and oversight.
Restriction on Issuance of Visas
Section 3 imposes visa restrictions on senior Chinese Communist Party officials (including Politburo, Central Committee, and 20th National Congress delegates), their spouses and children, members of PRC cabinets, and active PLA members. It allows for a yearly national-security-based waiver and requires a State/Justice Department-aligned framework for denial of entry. A concurrent reporting requirement mandates a government-wide assessment of visa screening efficacy and a list of entities tied to the PLA and the Ministry of State Security. This section links immigration policy to broader national-security concerns over IP theft.
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. intellectual property owners and licensees in sectors targeted for IP theft protections, who gain a clearer enforcement mechanism and risk reduction.
- U.S. technology and manufacturing firms relying on IP protections, which reduces exposure to IP theft and related leakage.
- U.S. enforcement and policy agencies (State Department, DOJ, DHS, Treasury) that gain new tools and reporting obligations to deter IP theft and track sanctioned parties.
- U.S. universities and research institutions with IP assets, which face reduced risk of IP leakage through international collaborations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Chinese individuals and entities identified in the sanctions, facing asset freezes and entry bans that could affect their business operations and international mobility.
- U.S. financial institutions and businesses with ties to sanctioned parties, which will incur compliance costs and enhanced due diligence.
- State Department and Homeland Security personnel required to implement and manage visa restrictions and enforcement, including screening and adjudication resources.
- Taxpayers and government agencies funding the 180-day reporting requirement and ongoing monitoring of sanction regimes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing aggressive IP-protection incentives with the risk of broad economic disruption and diplomatic escalation, given vague thresholds for what constitutes a “pattern of significant theft” and the broad scope of visa and asset-restrictive measures.
The bill relies on a somewhat open-ended standard for identifying a “pattern of significant theft” of intellectual property, which could lead to broad or narrow targeting depending on future definitions and administration interpretations. The mechanism pairs economic penalties with immigration tools, creating a dual lever on Chinese actors and potential collateral impact on multinational entities with complex supply chains.
The waiver and termination authorities provide executive flexibility, but also introduce ambiguity around the durability of sanctions and the speed of relief if relations shift. The visa restrictions extend beyond direct IP theft to cover senior officials and their families, raising questions about the scope of the restriction and its diplomatic repercussions.
The requirement for a public report within 180 days improves oversight but may raise national-security sensitivity around the identification of sensitive research collaborations and affiliations. Overall, the policy tension centers on deploying robust enforcement while maintaining practical enforceability and minimizing unintended economic and diplomatic spillovers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.