Homeland Security to seize control of port crane operations nationwide
H.R. 1165 — Port Crane Security and Inspection Act of 2025 · Filed by Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) · 8 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to inspect newly constructed foreign-made cranes at U.S. ports for cybersecurity risks before they operate, and to assess existing foreign cranes within 180 days. It prohibits new contracts for foreign cranes from being operated at U.S. ports and requires all foreign cranes to stop using foreign software within 5 years. The bill targets cranes with components or software manufactured by entities controlled by countries the U.S. intelligence community identifies as foreign adversaries (primarily China).
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to impose cybersecurity inspection and operational restrictions on foreign-manufactured cranes at U.S. ports. While framed as security, it functions as a de facto procurement restriction targeting specific foreign suppliers, with secondary effects on port operations and logistics costs.
What the text implies
- The 5-year timeline for removing foreign software may force ports to replace or retrofit cranes ahead of their operational lifespan, creating stranded assets and capital expenditure spikes.
- Broad definition of 'foreign crane' (any component from a covered-country entity) may capture cranes with only minor foreign subcomponents, potentially affecting more equipment than intended.
- No explicit exemption or transition period for cranes already under contract or in operation, creating legal and operational uncertainty for port operators and shipping companies.
- Inspection and certification authority rests entirely with DHS/CISA with no defined standards, appeal process, or timeline for certification decisions, creating potential bottlenecks.
- The bill does not address who bears the cost of inspections, retrofits, or replacement equipment—likely passed to port operators and ultimately consumers via shipping costs.
Who it affects
Port security and cybersecurity protections are genuine public goods that reduce infrastructure vulnerability and potential terrorism risk. However, the bill may increase port operational costs and shipping expenses that could be passed to consumers, and the broad definition of 'foreign crane' and 'foreign software' may disrupt existing port operations and supply chains without clear cost-benefit analysis or transition support.
Who stands to gain
- U.S. crane manufacturers and suppliers (domestic equipment replacement demand)
- Cybersecurity consulting and inspection firms
- Port operators (if they can pass costs to shippers)
- Logistics and shipping companies (if they can pass costs to consumers)
Named in the bill
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Director of National Intelligence, House Committee on Homeland Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. ports, Foreign adversary countries (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea implied), MHVYF (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — crane/port equipment exposure), FBIN (Finjan Holdings — cybersecurity exposure), PWR (Quanta Services — infrastructure/port services exposure), ODFL (Old Dominion Freight Line — logistics/shipping exposure), FINMF (Finjan Holdings — cybersecurity exposure)
Where it stands
8 cosponsors: 7 Republicans, 1 Democrats.
- Feb 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Homeland Security · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
4 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,750,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 5 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.
Carlos Gimenez, the sponsor, reported $315,250 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Consumer Bankers Association — $2,000,000 on 2 filings
- Azoa Services Corp(allianz of America) and Affiliates — $510,000 on 1 filing
- Insured Retirement Institute — $180,000 on 1 filing
- Liveramp, Inc. — $60,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jun 8, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Homeland Security to seize control of port crane operations nationwide” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1165 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.