The bill amends 5 U.S.C. §553 (the APA notice-and-comment provisions) to add an explicit ineligibility for any foreign government that the Secretary of Commerce has determined is a “foreign adversary” under 15 C.F.R. §791.4(a), and for nationals of or entities tied to such governments. It inserts an exception into subsections (c) and (e) of §553 and creates a new subsection (f) that bars those actors from participating in rulemaking or petitioning agencies.
This is a targeted structural change to the open rulemaking process: it narrows who may submit comments or petitions, delegates the identification of ineligible actors to an existing Commerce regulation, and leaves agencies responsible for excluding those submissions. That shift creates immediate operational questions about screening, proxy submissions, mixed-entity comments, and legal vulnerabilities around free-speech and administrative procedure doctrines—and therefore matters for agencies, compliance teams, public-interest groups, and firms with foreign ties.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 5 U.S.C. §553 by adding an exception that prevents participation in notice-and-comment and petition processes by any foreign government the Secretary of Commerce has designated a foreign adversary under 15 C.F.R. §791.4(a), and by nationals or entities associated with that government. It inserts the phrase “Except as provided in subsection (f)” into subsections (c) and (e) and adds subsection (f) declaring the ineligibility.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies conducting rulemaking must identify and exclude comments and petitions from covered foreign governments, nationals, and entities. Businesses, NGOs, academics, and intermediaries with ties to designated countries (including subsidiaries or dual nationals) face new compliance uncertainty. Platforms that host public comment submissions may need to implement screening or blocking procedures.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces a largely open administrative process with a categorical disqualification tied to Commerce’s foreign-adversary determinations, shifting operational burden to agencies and third parties while raising constitutional and administrative-law questions. For practitioners, it changes how rulemaking records will be assembled and defended.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act works by amending the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment framework. Instead of changing the overall requirement that agencies publish notices and accept comments, it carves out a class of actors that agencies must treat as ineligible to participate.
The legal hook is a Commerce Department determination—15 C.F.R. §791.4(a)—which the bill borrows wholesale as the eligibility trigger.
Practically, the amendment is twofold: it adds a qualifying phrase to the existing subsections of §553 that govern notice and agency obligations, and then appends a new subsection (f) that states, in plain terms, which actors are barred. The ineligible group includes (1) a foreign government determined to be a foreign adversary under the cited Commerce regulation, and (2) “a national of or entity incorporated in such foreign government,” language that ties individuals and corporate forms to that foreign-government designation.The bill leaves implementation details to agencies and existing administrative practice.
It does not set out a verification process, a notice requirement for excluded commenters, a mechanism for appeals or waiver, or civil penalties for noncompliance. That means agencies, platforms that accept comments, and counsel for affected parties will need to decide how to identify ineligible submissions, whether to filter or simply not consider them, and how to document exclusion decisions in the administrative record.Because the eligibility trigger is an external regulatory determination by Commerce, the bill creates a dependency: agencies rely on Commerce’s list and determinations rather than making independent assessments in each rulemaking.
That design reduces agency fact-finding burdens but centralizes a potentially consequential political and legal determination in one department. The bill also does not expressly address hybrid or joint submissions (for example, comments filed by coalitions that include both eligible U.S. actors and an ineligible entity), nor does it define the treatment of submissions routed through third parties or anonymized channels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 5 U.S.C. §553 by inserting “Except as provided in subsection (f)” into subsections (c) and (e), and adds a new subsection (f) that creates the disqualification.
Subsection (f) makes ineligible any foreign government determined a “foreign adversary” per 15 C.F.R. §791.4(a), and also bars nationals of or entities “incorporated in such foreign government.”, The text explicitly bars both participation in rulemaking (comments) and petitioning an agency under §553, expanding the practical scope beyond mere comment submission.
The statute relies on Commerce Department determinations under an existing federal regulation rather than creating a new designation mechanism or standards within the APA.
The bill contains no procedural rules for verification, no waiver process, and no civil or criminal penalties for submissions by ineligible actors; it simply states ineligibility and leaves enforcement and recordkeeping to agencies and intermediaries.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the "Safeguarding US Rulemaking Act." This is purely stylistic; it does not create operative policy but indicates the bill’s focus on protecting rulemaking from certain foreign actors.
Carveout language added to notice-and-comment provisions
The bill inserts the phrase “Except as provided in subsection (f)” into two operative subsections of §553. Subsection (c) governs publication and opportunity for comment following notice; subsection (e) governs agency response and recordkeeping obligations. The insertion signals that agencies must apply the rest of §553 while excluding covered actors. For practitioners, this changes the textual baseline agencies must follow when assembling administrative records and responding to comments.
Defines ineligible participants by reference to Commerce determinations
Subsection (f) is the operative rule: it declares ineligibility for any foreign government that the Secretary of Commerce has determined to be a foreign adversary under 15 C.F.R. §791.4(a), and for nationals and entities tied to such governments. The provision uses an external regulatory definition rather than its own statutory definitions, which makes Commerce’s designation process a gating mechanism for participation across all agencies’ rulemakings.
Operational consequences for agencies, commenters, and platforms
The bill does not specify how agencies or public-comment platforms must detect or document excluded submissions. Agencies will confront decisions—whether to reject submissions outright, redact and disregard them, or retain them in the record with a notation of ineligibility. The provision’s silence about waivers or appeals means courts could become the venue for challenges to exclusions, placing a premium on agencies’ procedural documentation and on Commerce’s designation process.
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
- Federal rulewriters and national-security officials: The bill narrows the pool of commentors to exclude those tied to Commerce-designated foreign adversaries, which proponents will argue reduces the risk of state-directed influence campaigns and simplifies the evidentiary posture agencies must adopt when defending rules against claims of foreign interference.
- Domestic firms competing against state-backed foreign entities: Companies that contend with unfair, state-sponsored practices may see fewer coordinated comment campaigns that favor rival foreign interests, potentially preserving the informational environment around competitive rulemakings.
- Policymakers focused on supply-chain and technology controls: Centralizing the foreign-adversary trigger around Commerce’s determinations aligns rulemaking exclusions with other export-control and industrial policy tools, giving a consistent administrative lever for national-security-oriented interventions.
- Security-focused civil-society organizations and researchers concerned about disinformation: By reducing participation from designated adversaries, the bill aims to lessen the avenues for malign influence during the regulatory process, which can improve the perceived integrity of public records.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies conducting notice-and-comment: Agencies must develop and document practices to screen, exclude, or otherwise handle ineligible submissions without statutory guidance, increasing administrative burdens and litigation risk when exclusions are challenged.
- U.S. organizations and researchers with cross-border collaborations: Dual nationals, U.S.-based NGOs with foreign partners, and multinational firms with subsidiaries tied to designated countries may face exclusion or uncertainty about whether joint or coalition comments are permissible.
- Public-comment platforms and intermediaries: Vendors and third-party platforms that accept or aggregate comments will likely have to implement identity-screening or content controls, incurring compliance costs and potential liability exposure for blocking or allowing submissions.
- Individuals and entities in designated countries: Even absent separate sanctions, nationals and companies tied to a designated foreign adversary lose formal access to participate in U.S. rulemaking, curtailing their ability to petition or supply technical input that could be relevant to regulatory outcomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: protect the integrity of federal rulemaking from state-directed influence and security threats, or preserve an open, participatory administrative process that maximizes information and protects free-speech and petition rights. Measures that exclude suspicious actors can reduce risk of manipulation but also risk silencing valuable technical input, creating overbreadth and imposing heavy operational burdens on agencies and intermediaries.
The bill raises major implementation and legal questions that it does not answer. First, it leaves undefined critical operational mechanics: who bears the burden of proving a commenter’s eligibility, how agencies should treat joint submissions or third-party filings, and whether platforms must proactively block or merely flag suspect submissions.
Those gaps create a range of administrative responses—from conservative blocking to retention with explanatory notes—each of which carries procedural and litigation risk.
Second, the bill ties exclusion to a Commerce regulatory determination. That linkage simplifies agency decision-making but concentrates a politically sensitive designation in one executive department; it also imports any legal challenges to Commerce’s process into every subsequent exclusion.
The statute is silent on waiver, notice to excluded parties, or a pathway to contest an exclusion outside of federal court. Finally, the phrasing—“national of or entity incorporated in such foreign government”—is imprecise.
It could sweep in dual nationals, diaspora organizations, overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies, or entities incorporated under local law but operating independently, producing both over-inclusiveness and potential conflicts with constitutional protections for speech and petitioning the government.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.