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 full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
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