DHS battery ban may cost more, deliver less—unless alternatives exist
H.R. 1166 — Decoupling from Foreign Adversarial Battery Dependence Act · Filed by Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 10, 2025 · Passed chamber
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 prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from buying batteries made by eight named Chinese companies (including CATL and BYD) or their subsidiaries, effective October 1, 2027. The Secretary can waive the ban only if no security risk exists AND no alternative batteries of similar cost and quality are available from non-listed makers, or if the batteries are solely for research. DHS must report to Congress within 180 days on the cost and mission impact of the ban.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a procurement ban on named foreign entities, framed as national security decoupling. It is not a subsidy or carve-out for domestic makers, but a restriction on DHS purchasing authority tied to geopolitical risk.
What the text implies
- The October 1, 2027 effective date gives DHS 2.5 years to identify and qualify alternative battery suppliers; if no viable domestic or allied alternatives exist at comparable cost/quality, DHS may face operational delays or budget overruns after the deadline.
- The waiver mechanism requires SecDHS to certify 'no available alternative' of 'similar or better cost and quality'—a high bar that may force DHS to accept costlier batteries or delay critical infrastructure upgrades (border security, TSA screening, Coast Guard operations).
- The bill does not establish a domestic battery manufacturing incentive or subsidy; it relies on market forces to produce alternatives, creating risk that no compliant supplier emerges by 2027.
- Inclusion of entities on the UFPLA list and DoD's Chinese military company list expands the ban beyond the named eight to any future additions, creating ongoing regulatory uncertainty for DHS procurement planning.
- The 180-day impact report may reveal that the ban imposes significant costs on DHS operations; however, the report is advisory only and does not trigger a legislative review or automatic waiver.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill addresses a legitimate national security concern—reducing dependence on Chinese battery makers for critical infrastructure—but imposes real costs on DHS operations and potentially on taxpayers through higher procurement costs or delayed deployments. The waiver mechanism is narrow and may force DHS to accept inferior or costlier alternatives, creating operational friction without clear evidence that the named companies pose an active threat to DHS specifically.
Who stands to gain
- U.S. and allied battery manufacturers (LG Energy Solution, SK Innovation, Panasonic, Tesla Energy, N
- Defense contractors and systems integrators supplying DHS with battery-dependent equipment
Named in the bill
Department of Homeland Security, Contemporary Amperex Technology Company Limited (CATL), BYD Company Limited, Envision Energy Limited, EVE Energy Company Limited, Gotion High Tech Company Limited, Hithium Energy Storage Technology Company Limited, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Coast Guard — and 5 more
Where it stands
4 cosponsors: 4 Republicans.
- Feb 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Homeland Security and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence”
- Mar 10, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection”
- Mar 10, 2025 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Green (TN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $160,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 12 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 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Carlos Gimenez, the sponsor, reported $315,250 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Dell Technologies, Inc. — $160,000 on 2 filings
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 bill text published by Congress.gov (3,572 characters) on Jul 2, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; 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.
“DHS battery ban may cost more, deliver less—unless alternatives exist” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1166 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.