Congress expands presidential power to freeze assets, revoke visas without clear limits
H.R. 3278 — Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act · Filed by Pat Fallon (R-TX) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced May 8, 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 significantly strengthens criminal penalties for attacks on critical infrastructure (raising sentences to 30 years or life imprisonment) and grants the President broad authority to impose sanctions—including asset freezes and visa revocations—against foreign persons who knowingly access U.S. critical infrastructure systems with intent to harm national security or citizen safety. The bill relies on existing definitions from the Patriot Act and gives the President substantial discretion to determine who qualifies for sanctions, with limited advance congressional notification.
Why we flagged it
The bill amends criminal law to impose severe penalties for attacks on critical infrastructure and authorizes presidential sanctions against foreign actors who access such systems. Its functional purpose is national security enforcement, not legislative vanity or corporate welfare.
What the text implies
- Presidential authority to impose asset freezes and visa revocations on foreign persons is extremely broad and relies on the President's unilateral determination of 'knowingly' accessing critical infrastructure, with only a 10-day congressional notification requirement post-facto.
- The definition of 'critical infrastructure' is imported from the Patriot Act (Public Law 107–56, Section 1016) without being restated, creating potential ambiguity about scope and requiring readers to cross-reference a 2001 statute.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
cybersecurity firms and critical infrastructure defense contractors; financial services compliance and regulatory technology vendors; energy sector operators (potential increased compliance costs offset by protection from foreign inte