Congress blocks foreign state control of U.S. ports

What it does

This bill prohibits U.S. port owners and operators from entering into contracts for port ownership, leasing, or operation with Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian state-owned enterprises, or with any foreign entity partially owned by those countries. The restriction applies to facilities required to have security plans under federal maritime law.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a straightforward prohibition on foreign state-owned enterprise involvement in U.S. port operations. It is a security-focused restriction on contracting authority, not a subsidy, deregulation, or commemorative measure.

What the text implies

• The prohibition may incentivize affected foreign entities to restructure ownership to obscure state control, creating enforcement and verification challenges for port authorities.
• Port operators may face reduced competition in certain markets if foreign entities are the only available contractors, potentially raising operational costs that could be passed to shippers and consumers.
• The bill does not establish a mechanism for determining what constitutes 'any percentage' ownership by a listed country, leaving ambiguity in compliance and potential disputes over entity eligibility.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill restricts foreign state control of critical U.S. port infrastructure, which protects national security and supply-chain resilience for ordinary citizens and businesses. Port security and operational independence from adversarial state actors is a legitimate public interest that outweighs any marginal reduction in contracting options for port operators.

Named in the bill

U.S. port operators, Chinese state-owned enterprises, Russian state-owned enterprises, North Korean state-owned enterprises, Iranian state-owned enterprises, Title 46 U.S.C. (Maritime Law), Section 70103(c) (facility security plans), Section 70101 (definitions)

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Jan 9, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 9, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure”
• Apr 2, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Apr 2, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote”
• Jun 9, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2556)”
• Jun 9, 2025 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Ezell moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $720,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 10 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 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Ken Calvert, the sponsor, reported $1,368,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Trucking Associations — $720,000 on 1 filing
• Chamber of Shipping of America — $0 on 3 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.