The BOLIVAR Act prohibits executive agencies from entering into procurement contracts with any person the agency head, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines knowingly engages in significant business operations with authorities of Venezuela not recognized by the United States. The statutory ban covers commerce in any form—including owning, leasing, operating, or otherwise maintaining facilities or personnel—and lasts for contracts entered during the three-year period after the Act’s enactment.
The bill matters to federal contracting officers, compliance teams, multinational firms and their subsidiaries, and foreign‑policy advisers because it layers a new foreign‑operations screen onto procurement eligibility. It also creates a series of operational and oversight questions—how agencies will make and document determinations, how OFAC licenses and narrow humanitarian or national‑security exceptions work in practice, and how the Secretary of State’s waiver authority and congressional notification requirement will be used.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars an executive agency from contracting for goods or services with any person the agency head determines (with Secretary of State concurrence) knowingly engages in significant business operations with Venezuelan authorities not recognized by the U.S. It builds in exceptions for humanitarian/disaster relief, national security, U.S. government support activities, OFAC‑licensed actors, and contracts tied to U.S. diplomatic posts, and allows a State Department waiver for national‑interest reasons.
Who It Affects
Federal contracting officers and agency procurement shops must add a foreign‑operations determination to vendor eligibility; U.S. and foreign companies with subsidiaries, leases, or operations tied to Venezuelan entities face disqualification risk; compliance and legal teams will need to map ownership and operational footprints to Venezuela to assess eligibility.
Why It Matters
The Act makes procurement another lever of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, potentially narrowing the vendor pool for federal contracts and encouraging corporate divestment from Maduro‑aligned entities; it also creates new administrative burdens and legal uncertainty for agencies and contractors around evidence, knowledge standards, and the interplay with OFAC licensing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, the BOLIVAR Act conditions a federal agency’s ability to award procurement contracts on whether the prospective contractor knowingly maintains significant commercial ties to Venezuelan authorities that the United States does not recognize. The decision is not unilateral: an agency head must make the determination and secure the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
The statute defines “business operations” broadly—covering purchases, leases, ownership, operation of facilities or equipment, and virtually any commercial apparatus—so traditional notions of a narrow transactional link will not shield an entity whose affiliates or facilities are active in Venezuela.
The bill enumerates narrow carveouts designed to preserve emergency and core governmental functions. The Secretary of State can authorize contracts necessary for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, noncombatant evacuations, or where contracting serves U.S. national security interests.
Contracts that support U.S. government activities in Venezuela, including maintenance of U.S. facilities, and contracts with international organizations are explicitly excluded from the ban. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licensees are also outside the prohibition—if a person holds a valid OFAC license that authorizes operations in Venezuela they are eligible for federal contracting despite otherwise disqualifying ties.Procedurally, the statute requires the Secretary of State to notify specified congressional committees when the government relies on the humanitarian/disaster/noncombatant evacuation or national security exception to award a contract.
The Secretary of State also holds singular waiver authority to exempt contracts from the prohibition when doing so is in the national interest. The statute’s applicability is time‑limited: it governs contracts entered into during the three‑year period following enactment.Practically, the Act will force contractors to expand due diligence—to identify indirect business operations, ownership chains, and services that might be characterized as significant.
Procurement officers will need protocols to gather factual records, seek the Secretary of State’s concurrence, and document reliance on exceptions or a waiver. The bill does not create criminal penalties or a new civil enforcement regime; its primary tool is disqualification from federal procurement during the three‑year window, leaving open administrative remedies and potential litigation over determinations and knowledge standards.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The prohibition attaches to any procurement contract an executive agency enters into during the three years after enactment if the agency head, with Secretary of State concurrence, determines the contractor knowingly engages in significant business operations with Venezuelan authorities the U.S. does not recognize.
The Secretary of State may exempt contracts the Secretary determines are necessary for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, noncombatant evacuations, or for U.S. national security—those exceptions require notification to specified congressional committees when used.
Entities authorized to operate in Venezuela under a valid Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) license are explicitly exempted from the ban.
Contracts for the operation and maintenance of U.S. consular offices and diplomatic posts in Venezuela are excluded from the prohibition, and contracts that support U.S. government activities in Venezuela (including maintenance of U.S. government facilities) are carved out.
The Secretary of State may waive the prohibition where doing so is in the national interest, giving the executive branch final flexibility to override the bar in specified circumstances.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the “Banning Operations and Leases with the Illegitimate Venezuelan Authoritarian Regime Act” or the “BOLIVAR Act.” This is purely captioning but signals the bill’s explicit foreign‑policy target and frames subsequent provisions as tools of diplomatic pressure.
Procurement ban conditioned on foreign‑operations determination
Establishes the operative bar: an executive agency may not enter into procurement contracts with any person that the agency head determines, with Secretary of State concurrence, knowingly engages in significant business operations with Venezuelan governmental authorities not recognized by the United States. The mechanics place the agency head and the State Department in a collaborative fact‑finding and approval posture before awards may proceed.
Narrow exceptions for humanitarian, disaster, evacuation, national‑security, and U.S. government support activities
Lists specific situations where the prohibitory rule does not apply: contracts necessary for humanitarian relief, disaster responses, noncombatant evacuations, or those in the national security interest, plus contracts that support U.S. government operations in Venezuela and contracts with international organizations. The Secretary of State must notify designated congressional committees when a contract is awarded under the subsection’s individual exceptions, creating an oversight loop for sensitive uses of the carveouts.
OFAC licensees and diplomatic‑mission contracts exempt
Clarifies that persons with valid OFAC licenses permitting operations in Venezuela are unaffected by the bar, and that contracts tied to the operation and upkeep of the United States’ consular and diplomatic posts in Venezuela are also excluded. These carveouts preserve existing sanctions‑licensing channels and the operational continuity of diplomatic facilities.
Secretary of State waiver in the national interest
Grants the Secretary of State authority to waive the prohibition when doing so is in the national interest. The waiver centralizes final discretionary authority in the State Department, allowing it to override the statutory bar to serve broader diplomatic or strategic objectives.
Broad definitions of key terms
Provides definitions for ‘‘appropriate congressional committees,’’ ‘‘business operations’’ (broadly covering acquiring, leasing, maintaining, operating, or owning property or services), ‘‘executive agency’’ (by reference to title 41), ‘‘Government of Venezuela’’ (including political subdivisions and agencies), and ‘‘person’’ (spanning natural persons, corporations, governmental entities, and affiliates). The expansive definition of business operations increases the range of activities that can trigger disqualification.
Three‑year temporal limit
Limits the statute’s applicability to contracts entered into during the three‑year period beginning on the date of enactment. This creates a fixed window for the procurement restriction rather than an open‑ended sanction, with implications for both short‑term policy impact and long‑term planning by affected parties.
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. foreign‑policy and diplomatic apparatus — gives the State Department and agencies an explicit procurement tool to pressure entities tied to Venezuelan authorities the U.S. does not recognize, increasing leverage without invoking additional statutory sanctions.
- Companies without Venezuelan ties — domestic and foreign vendors that have avoided Venezuelan operations gain a competitive procurement edge as the pool of eligible bidders narrows.
- Humanitarian planners and congressional overseers — the statutory exception plus required notifications preserves channels for emergency assistance while creating oversight reporting that gives Congress visibility into exception usage.
Who Bears the Cost
- Multinational firms with Venezuelan affiliates or contracts — parent companies and subsidiaries that maintain leases, facilities, or personnel in Venezuela risk disqualification from U.S. procurement unless they secure OFAC licenses or a State Department waiver.
- Federal procurement offices and contracting officers — must implement new vetting procedures, gather evidence to support determinations, seek Secretary of State concurrence, and track exception notifications, increasing administrative and legal burdens.
- Small businesses tied indirectly to Venezuela via ownership chains — companies that appear compliant on paper but have upstream investors or common ownership with Venezuelan operations face compliance risk and potential exclusion without clear guidance on remediation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to use federal procurement as a coercive foreign‑policy lever against an authoritarian regime while preserving the government’s ability to secure goods and services—particularly for humanitarian, diplomatic, and national‑security needs. The statute tries to square that circle with exceptions, an OFAC carveout, and a State Department waiver, but those same mechanisms can undercut the ban’s deterrent effect or create slow, uncertain implementation that hampers both policy and procurement efficiency.
The bill is blunt in outcome but vague on several operational fronts. ‘‘Knowingly engages in significant business operations’’ is the statutory trigger, but the statute does not define a quantitative or qualitative threshold for ‘‘significant’’ or specify the evidentiary standard for ‘‘knowing.’” That ambiguity raises litigation risk and forces agencies to develop evidentiary frameworks—will ownership percentages, revenue thresholds, lease terms, or operational presence govern the analysis? Similarly, the requirement that an agency head obtain Secretary of State concurrence centralizes foreign‑policy consistency but could slow procurement and create gatekeeping bottlenecks, especially for time‑sensitive buys.
The OFAC license carveout and the State Department waiver are both practical escape hatches that reduce the statute’s bluntness, but they also create inconsistency in application. OFAC licensing processes are separate and operate on a different administrative record than procurement decisions; contractors may need parallel applications and face timing mismatches.
The national‑interest waiver vests broad discretion in the Secretary of State, meaning that, in practice, the bar’s force depends on executive branch policy choices. Finally, the three‑year sunset concentrates policy pressure into a fixed window but also leaves unanswered whether subsequent policy will reimpose or alter the restriction, complicating long‑term corporate planning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.