This bill requires the Director of National Intelligence, acting through the National Intelligence Council and in consultation with other intelligence community elements, to produce a multi-topic assessment of foreign malign influence activities undertaken outside the United States by the Chinese Communist Party. The assessment is scoped to a three-year window beginning January 1, 2023 and is intended for delivery to multiple congressional oversight committees.
The statutory product is an information-gathering directive rather than an operational or sanctioning vehicle: it creates a mandated analytic deliverable designed to surface trends, effects on alliances and financial systems, and other national-security implications that will guide congressional oversight and executive branch policy choices.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the DNI to produce an Intelligence Community assessment—coordinated through the National Intelligence Council—covering CCP foreign malign influence activities outside the United States and addressing specified topics such as regional activity, effects on alliances and financial systems, and trends. The bill requires the DNI to provide initial findings and a final assessment to congressional committees, with the reports unclassified in form but permitting a classified annex.
Who It Affects
The intelligence community (NIC, DNI, and component analytic elements) must assemble and deliver the assessment; Congress will receive the product for oversight. Departments that consume such analysis—State, Defense, and Treasury—are principal users, while allied governments and regional policymakers are primary subjects of the report's findings.
Why It Matters
The assessment centralizes cross-IC analysis on CCP influence in four geographically defined regions and forces the production of an unclassified product suitable for policymakers and the public. That combination shapes how Congress and agencies will prioritize diplomacy, security assistance, economic measures, and future intelligence collection.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill gives the Director of National Intelligence a single, timebound task: produce an Intelligence Community assessment of foreign malign influence activities carried out outside the United States by the Chinese Communist Party. The DNI must coordinate that product through the National Intelligence Council and consult other intelligence elements so the report reflects cross-agency inputs rather than a single-source memo.
Congress spells out what the assessment must cover: locations and activities in specified ‘‘key regions,’’ impacts on U.S. alliances and how the United States is perceived, the effects of CCP activity on global and local financial systems, emerging trends in influence operations, and any additional national-security implications the Director finds relevant. The bill frames the work as analysis of activity ‘‘undertaken outside the United States’’ rather than domestic influence or U.S.-based actors.Procedurally the statute requires the DNI to deliver initial findings quickly and a finished assessment within six months of enactment, and it directs that the reports be produced in unclassified form with the option to include a classified annex.
The bill also identifies which congressional committees will receive the product, ensuring both intelligence and policy committees have access for oversight.Although the law only mandates an analytic product—not policy action—the assessment is designed to feed decisions across the executive branch and Congress. Policymakers can use the findings to reallocate collection priorities, justify diplomatic engagement or security assistance in affected regions, or underpin legislative or economic measures.
The bill does not itself specify follow-on authorities or remedies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The assessment must cover a three-year period beginning January 1, 2023.
The DNI must submit initial findings to Congress within 90 days of enactment and the final assessment within 180 days.
Reports must be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
The statute defines four ‘‘key regions’’ for analysis: the Indo‑Pacific, Africa, Latin America, and Europe.
The bill adopts the statutory definition of ‘‘foreign malign influence’’ by referencing section 119C(f) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3059(f)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s name: the ‘‘Combating Chinese Communist Party Influence Act.’
DNI-directed Intelligence Community assessment
Requires the Director of National Intelligence, acting through the National Intelligence Council and consulting other intelligence community elements, to produce a single assessment focused on CCP foreign malign influence activities undertaken outside the United States. Practically, that places responsibility for cross-agency coordination and final analytic judgment with the DNI and NIC rather than with an individual service or agency.
Required analytic topics
Lists discrete topics the assessment must address: CCP activity in key regions at the expense of the United States and its allies; effects on alliances and perceptions; effects on global and local financial systems; trends in influence activity; and any other national-security implications the Director deems relevant. This structure constrains the analytic scope while leaving room for the Director to add issues that emerge during collection and analysis.
Reporting deadlines and form
Imposes a two-stage delivery schedule: initial findings to appropriate congressional committees within 90 days of enactment and a full assessment within 180 days. Both reports must be in unclassified form, though the DNI may attach a classified annex. The statutory requirement for an unclassified product increases transparency but creates a simultaneous need to protect sensitive sources and methods.
Designated congressional recipients
Specifies which Senate and House committees receive the reports, spanning intelligence, armed services/defense, foreign affairs, homeland security, and the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. Naming committees ensures the assessment reaches both oversight and policy-focused bodies that can act on the findings.
Definitions and geographic scope
Adopts the statutory definition of ‘‘foreign malign influence’’ by reference to the National Security Act and enumerates the four ‘‘key regions’’—the Indo‑Pacific, Africa, Latin America, and Europe—as the geographical focus. The defined terms shape analytic boundaries and will drive which collection streams and partner inputs the DNI prioritizes.
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
- Congressional oversight committees — They receive a mandated, cross‑IC unclassified assessment to inform hearings, budget decisions, and legislative responses related to CCP influence.
- State Department and regional policy planners — The analysis will supply consolidated intelligence on regional influence campaigns that can shape diplomatic engagement and assistance strategies.
- Allied and partner governments in the four key regions — Validated, public facing findings can help allies recognize and respond to influence operations and coordinate countermeasures.
- Analysts, think tanks, and private security firms — An unclassified product expands the evidence base available to independent analysts and commercial clients, improving public debate and risk assessments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council — They must marshal analytic resources, coordinate across disparate agencies, and meet tight deadlines, which will divert time and funding from other priorities.
- Component intelligence elements (NSA, CIA, DIA, etc.) — Agencies will need to allocate collection and analytic personnel to support the product, increasing short‑term workload and potential opportunity costs.
- Congressional staff and committee infrastructure — Receiving initial and final reports creates review, oversight, and potential follow-up demands that require staff time and hearings resources.
- Allies and partner governments named or implicated — Public reporting of influence activity can create diplomatic strain and political costs for partners if the findings are sensitive or politically charged.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency versus protection: Congress and the public need a usable, unclassified assessment to hold government and partners accountable, but useful attribution and operational detail often derive from classified sources and sensitive partnerships—forcing a choice between timely, public transparency and the analytic rigor and secrecy that underpin reliable intelligence.
The statute sets clear deliverables but leaves important methodological and practical questions open. ‘‘Foreign malign influence’’ is adopted by reference rather than redefined, which requires analysts to reconcile the statutory definition with operational realities and diverse influence techniques that may sit at the border of diplomacy, commercial activity, and covert action. Attribution will be a persistent challenge: distinguishing CCP-directed campaigns from activities by private actors or local proxies, and demonstrating that operations were ‘‘at the expense of the United States and allies,’’ will require careful evidentiary standards.
The requirement that reports be unclassified in form but may contain a classified annex creates a real trade-off. To be useful publicly, the unclassified product must summarize key findings without revealing sources or methods, yet meaningful attribution often depends on classified intelligence.
Short statutory timelines raise the risk of preliminary or incomplete analysis; producing a timely product within 90 and 180 days may force analytic shortcuts or heavier reliance on existing reporting. Finally, the bill mandates analysis but not action, so stakeholders may press for follow-on policy measures that the statute does not authorize, creating expectations the executive branch may not be prepared to meet.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.