SB1864 inserts a finality clause into section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The amendment redesignates two subsections and adds language that makes the Secretary of Defense’s determinations about adding an entity to the NDAA-mandated list of Chinese military companies conclusive and not subject to review by other officials or courts.
This is consequential because placement on that list carries immediate reputational and compliance consequences for companies and for U.S. government contracting and investment practices. By insulating DoD’s addition decisions from review, the bill narrows legal avenues for challenge and concentrates authority inside the Department of Defense — a shift that affects affected firms, interagency partners, and the judiciary’s oversight role in national-security-related administrative actions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 10 U.S.C. 113 note (section 1260H of the NDAA for FY2021) to add a new subsection that declares the Secretary of Defense’s decisions about adding entities to the statute’s ‘Chinese military companies’ list final and nonreviewable, explicitly barring judicial remedies including mandamus.
Who It Affects
Entities subject to listing under subsection (b)(1) of section 1260H — primarily Chinese firms operating in the United States — as well as U.S. companies that contract with or invest in those entities, DoD offices that make listing determinations, and other federal agencies that rely on the list for regulatory or procurement decisions.
Why It Matters
The change removes routine avenues for administrative or judicial challenge of listing decisions, increasing DoD’s unilateral control over a designation with broad economic and compliance impacts and raising immediate questions about interagency coordination and legal recourse for affected parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1260H, added by the FY2021 NDAA, directs the Department of Defense to identify Chinese military companies operating in the United States and to publish a list. SB1864 leaves the listing requirement itself intact but rewrites the procedural backstop: the bill inserts a provision that makes the Secretary of Defense’s determinations about adding an entity to that list immune from review by other officials or by federal courts.
Mechanically, the bill does two things: it shifts two existing subsection labels down (a clerical redesignation) and it introduces a new subsection that says any question about an addition decision is “final and conclusive” and “may not be reviewed” by any official or any court, explicitly mentioning mandamus as an example of a barred remedy. The statutory text is narrowly targeted to ‘‘questions regarding the addition of an entity’’ under the list-authorizing subsection, so it speaks to the act of listing rather than broader DoD policies.The practical effect is to eliminate administrative appeals and ordinary judicial review routes for entities that face listing.
Because placement on the list often triggers downstream consequences — heightened scrutiny, loss of contracting opportunities, and forced contract terminations by counterparties — making additions unreviewable accelerates and hardens those consequences. Implementation will therefore be both an internal DoD responsibility and a coordination challenge for agencies and private parties that use the list in regulatory or commercial contexts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB1864 amends section 1260H of the FY2021 NDAA (codified at 10 U.S.C. 113 note) by inserting a new subsection (f) that addresses reviewability of listing decisions.
The bill redesignates existing subsections (f) and (g) of section 1260H as (g) and (h) — a clerical change accompanying the new insertion.
The new subsection declares the Secretary of Defense’s decision on any question ‘regarding the addition of an entity’ to the subsection (b)(1) list to be ‘final and conclusive.’, SB1864 expressly bars review ‘by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise,’ signaling an intent to foreclose both administrative and judicial remedies.
The prohibition in the bill is limited to addition decisions under the listed statutory subsection; it does not, on its face, address removal, labeling, or other separate actions or statutes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s short name: the ‘No Safe Harbor for the Enemy Act.’ This is a purely formal provision that does not affect statutory mechanics or enforcement.
Clerical redesignation of subsections
Redesignates the existing subsections (f) and (g) of 1260H as (g) and (h). That change is administrative and preserves the statutory structure when the bill inserts a new subsection; it has no substantive legal effect beyond updating cross‑references and the numbering scheme.
Finality of Secretary of Defense’s addition decisions
Adds language that makes any question about adding an entity to the Chinese military companies list a decision that is ‘final and conclusive’ and not subject to review by other officials or courts. Practically, this removes internal administrative appeal routes and forecloses writs such as mandamus, eliminating ordinary judicial oversight of the listing decision itself. The text is limited to questions regarding addition under subsection (b)(1), which means the provision focuses on the act of designating an entity for the list rather than other related determinations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense 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 unilateral, insulated control over which entities are added to the list, allowing faster, less encumbered national-security determinations without fear of immediate judicial interference.
- Policy officials prioritizing rapid national-security responses — Can rely on a designation to take immediate effect without being delayed by litigation or interagency appeal processes.
- Counterparties and domestic contractors seeking regulatory certainty — Entities that must comply with list-driven restrictions get a single, authoritative source (DoD) to consult about designated entities, reducing conflicting interpretations among agencies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Listed entities (primarily Chinese firms operating in the U.S.) — Face reputational harm and compliance fallout with little or no administrative or judicial avenue to contest erroneous or overbroad listings.
- U.S. companies doing business with listed entities — May face abrupt contractual, supply-chain, or investment disruptions if counterparties rely on an unreviewable DoD list to trigger restrictions.
- Federal courts and constitutional claimants — Courts lose a clear statutory route to review certain administrative acts, potentially shifting disputes into constitutional litigation or leaving claims unaddressed; affected parties may attempt less certain constitutional challenges (e.g., Due Process) against a backdrop of statutory nonreviewability.
- Other federal agencies — Agencies that use the DoD list for enforcement or procurement will have to accept DoD’s determinations without their own review, complicating interagency vetting and risk assessment processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives: enabling swift, insulated national-security designations by Defense authorities versus preserving legal safeguards (administrative procedures and judicial review) that protect entities from erroneous, overbroad, or procedurally flawed listings; resolving that trade-off forces a choice between speed and secrecy on one hand and process and accountability on the other.
The bill creates immediate implementation and legal-policy questions. First, by cutting off administrative and judicial review avenues for additions, the provision increases the importance of DoD’s internal fact‑finding and procedures; the statute does not specify any internal notice, evidentiary, or appeal process to protect against errors.
Second, the text targets ‘addition’ decisions under subsection (b)(1) but is silent about removals or related decisions by other agencies — creating potential operational gaps where an entity cannot challenge being added yet may still seek relief through other means.
Legally, Congress can limit judicial review in certain contexts, but absolute statutory preclusion can collide with constitutional protections. The bill’s broad bar on review, including mandamus, raises questions about whether courts would accept blanket nonreviewability in cases alleging violations of constitutional rights or ultra vires agency action.
Practically, market actors and other agencies will have to decide whether to treat the DoD list as dispositive even where listing procedures are undisclosed, which could produce inconsistent outcomes and incentivize preemptive de-risking by private firms.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.