The COUNTER Act of 2025 directs the Director of National Intelligence to produce an assessment of the risk posed by People’s Republic of China (PRC) overseas basing within 180 days, and requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to deliver a detailed strategy—also within 180 days—addressing PRC global basing intentions. That strategy must identify not fewer than five locations of chief concern, inventory executive‑branch entities working the problem (with programmatic and personnel resource estimates), describe existing mitigation efforts, and specify actions that would persuade foreign governments to terminate plans to host PRC forces.
The bill also mandates an interagency task force to implement the strategy within 90 days of submission and establishes a recurring four‑year review cycle. For practitioners, the bill converts PRC basing from an episodic diplomatic issue into a mandated, resourced, and regularly reviewed national security program with reporting obligations to multiple congressional committees — which will shape assistance, diplomatic engagement, intelligence priorities, and force posture planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires a classified DNI assessment of PRC global basing risk and a State–Defense strategy that identifies at least five priority locations, lists involved executive‑branch entities with resource estimates, catalogs mitigation efforts, and spells out actions to induce partners to terminate PRC basing plans. It then directs creation of an interagency task force and quadrennial reviews.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Department of State, Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and agencies that provide security, economic, or development assistance (e.g., USAID). It also imposes new reporting and oversight obligations on several congressional committees and changes the operational posture of U.S. diplomatic missions in the named countries and regions.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes a whole‑of‑government posture toward PRC overseas basing, forcing agencies to surface resource needs and prioritize actions. That procedural shift will influence where the U.S. invests diplomatic capital, security assistance, and intelligence support — and it raises the political and operational stakes of bilateral discussions with partner governments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The COUNTER Act starts from a simple problem statement: analysts see the PRC trying to build or gain access to overseas logistics and basing facilities that could extend the PLA’s reach. To turn that assessment into action, the bill splits responsibilities.
First, the Director of National Intelligence must deliver an analytic product — which can be classified — that evaluates how PRC basing would affect U.S. and allied power projection, freedom of movement, and other interests. That assessment is the evidence base for what follows.
Using that evidence, the Secretary of State (working with the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials) must produce a strategy within 180 days. The statute requires the strategy to do four practical things: name at least five locations of chief concern where PRC presence could evolve into a base; map which executive‑branch entities are already engaged and quantify their programmatic and personnel needs; describe current mitigation and prevention efforts in detail; and, for each listed location, identify the specific U.S. or allied actions most likely to persuade the host government to halt or reverse PRC basing plans.
Requiring agency‑by‑agency resource estimates is notable — the bill pushes agencies to put numbers and people behind the strategy, not just policy language.After the strategy is delivered, the Secretary of State must convene an interagency task force within 90 days to implement it. The task force has two core responsibilities: lead implementation at the identified locations and hunt for mitigation measures that would prevent new PRC bases beyond that initial list.
The bill also locks in a governance rhythm: the State Department, in coordination with Defense and DNI, must review and resubmit the same type of strategy and supporting information at least once every four years, ensuring the issue remains a sustained line of effort rather than a one‑off report.Two implementation realities matter for practitioners. First, the bill explicitly allows classified reporting, which preserves operational secrecy but creates the perennial oversight tradeoff between transparency and security.
Second, the Act’s broad definition of “PRC global basing” includes military, intelligence, security forces, or infrastructure designed to support PRC forces — language that can encompass dual‑use ports, training facilities, or sites tied to commercial and scientific cooperation. That breadth expands the policy toolkit but also raises the risk of diplomatic friction when the U.S. seeks to “terminate” arrangements their partners may view as legitimate cooperation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Director of National Intelligence must submit an assessment of PRC global basing risk to appropriate congressional committees within 180 days; the assessment may be classified.
The Secretary of State, with the Secretary of Defense, must deliver a strategy within 180 days that identifies not fewer than five locations of chief concern and prescribes actions to persuade host governments to terminate PRC basing plans.
The strategy must include an agency‑by‑agency inventory of entities working the problem and estimated programmatic and personnel resource requirements to address PRC global basing intentions.
Within 90 days after the strategy is submitted, the Secretary of State must establish an interagency task force to implement the strategy at the identified locations and to identify mitigation measures for additional at‑risk sites.
The State Department, with Defense and DNI, must conduct and report a review of the strategy at least once every four years (quadrennial reviews) and provide updated information to congressional committees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short titles
This is the formal naming provision; it gives the bill the short title “COUNTER Act of 2025.” It has no operational effect but clarifies citation and legislative reference.
Findings — scope and evidence
Congress recites the intelligence baseline that underpins the bill, citing the 2024 Military and Security Developments report and specific examples (Djibouti, Ream in Cambodia, and a list of countries of likely PRC interest). Practically, those findings both justify the law and hint at geographic priorities; they also establish that U.S. concern extends beyond the Indo‑Pacific to multiple regions where logistics nodes and port access matter.
Sense of Congress — policy guidance and priorities
This section lays out congressional expectations rather than creating binding operational commands: respond urgently, use whole‑of‑government approaches, prioritize the issue in strategic competition, and factor allied contributions. The amended text explicitly calls out that PRC sometimes uses commercial and scientific cooperation as cover — a signal that lawful economic programs may be evaluated through a security lens. For practitioners, this is a directive to integrate diplomatic, economic, and security instruments when shaping partner decisions.
Definitions — what counts as 'PRC global basing'
The definition of “PRC global basing” is broad: it covers any physical location outside the PRC hosting PLA units, PRC intelligence/security forces, or infrastructure designed to support PRC military/intel/security presence for power projection. That breadth matters because it brings dual‑use infrastructure and non‑permanent access arrangements squarely into the statute’s scope and therefore into the strategy’s calculus.
Intelligence assessment of risk
The DNI must produce an intelligence assessment within 180 days analyzing how PRC basing could impede U.S. and allied power projection, freedom of movement, and related interests. The law contemplates classified delivery; that lets analysts include sensitive collection judgments but also requires DNI to justify analytic conclusions to oversight committees.
Strategy content, interagency implementation, and recurring reviews
The Secretary of State, with Defense and other senior officials, must produce a strategy in the same 180‑day window that (1) lists at least five priority locations, (2) provides an inventory of executive‑branch entities with estimated programmatic and personnel needs, (3) details mitigation and prevention efforts, and (4) identifies specific actions that would be most effective to get partners to stop hosting PRC forces. Within 90 days of submitting that strategy, State must form an interagency task force to coordinate implementation and to identify mitigation measures for other possible target locations. Finally, the statute requires a quadrennial review cycle — the strategy and supporting information must be reviewed and re‑submitted at least every four years — institutionalizing sustained attention and updates as the security environment evolves.
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
- Department of Defense — Gains clearer analytic inputs and prioritized locations that can shape force posture, contingency planning, and coordination with allies, improving operational planning.
- Congressional oversight committees — Receive structured, periodic reporting (including classified assessments) and agency resource estimates, enhancing their ability to authorize and appropriate targeted funding.
- Allied and partner governments seeking alternatives to PRC offers — Can receive coordinated U.S. diplomatic, economic, and security options designed to help them resist PRC basing proposals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of State — Faces increased diplomatic workload and likely new expectations to manage security assistance, development programs, and political engagements tied to persuading partners; may require reallocation of personnel and budgets.
- Intelligence community and DNI — Must produce a timely, potentially resource‑intensive assessment and then support follow‑on strategy implementation with collection and analysis demands.
- U.S. taxpayers and appropriators — If the strategy translates into security assistance, infrastructure investments, or new deployments, Congress will face requests for funding to meet the agency resource estimates the bill compels.
- Smaller agencies (e.g., USAID) and regional bureaus — May be pulled into politically sensitive activities that require programmatic adjustments and carry reputational or operational risks in partner countries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is choosing between a proactive, interventionist approach that seeks to block PRC basing early (which requires resources, leverage, and sometimes coercive pressure) and respecting the sovereignty and political choices of partner governments (which limits what the U.S. can credibly demand). At the same time, maintaining necessary operational secrecy for effective countermeasures conflicts with congressional and public demands for transparency and oversight.
The bill forces agencies to move from ad hoc responses to a mandated program, but it leaves major implementation choices unanswered. The requirement to identify actions that would be “most effective” in persuading host governments to terminate PRC basing plans raises practical and legal questions: what mix of security assistance, economic incentives, legal measures, or public diplomacy does the U.S. offer, and who pays?
Those options will interact with host‑nation sovereignty and local politics; the most persuasive levers in one country could be counterproductive in another.
The statute balances transparency to Congress with operational secrecy by allowing classified deliveries, but that balance creates tension between public accountability and the need to protect sources, methods, and sensitive bargaining positions. The bill also presumes interagency cooperation and funded capacity: agencies must produce programmatic and personnel estimates, but the Act does not itself appropriate funds.
Success therefore depends on follow‑on appropriations and appetite in Congress for diplomacy, assistance, and potential theater posture changes. Finally, the Act’s broad definition of PRC global basing—covering infrastructure and intelligence or security activities—raises the risk of conflating legitimate commercial or scientific cooperation with hostile military basing, which could complicate diplomatic relationships and generate unintended escalation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.