Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Requires the Department of Defense to procure and use information and communications technology (ICT) end-use products only from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or authorized resellers.
Allows the Secretary of Defense to grant limited waivers for scientifically valid research or to avoid jeopardizing mission-critical functions, with notification and mitigation requirements to congressional defense committees.
Directs the Secretary to provide vendor technical assistance to help entities become authorized resellers, requires annual unclassified reports (with possible classified annexes) on waivers for six years, and contains no new appropriations.
Narrow, security-focused procurement restriction with bipartisan appeal but potential industry/contracting disruption; could pass alone or be folded into defense authorization.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that is supported by well‑specified definitions, a concrete prohibition, a waiver framework, vendor assistance direction, and reporting requirements. It supplies the basic legal architecture needed to alter DoD procurement behavior but leaves several operational and fiscal implementation elements unspecified.
Liberals worry about market concentration; conservatives emphasize security gains
Liberals worry about market concentration; conservatives emphasize security gains
Likely cautiously supportive because the bill addresses foreign adversary risks and supply-chain security.
Concerned about concentrating procurement with major OEMs and potential harm to small U.S. vendors and competition.
Would want strong transparency, enforcement of mitigation plans, and protections for smaller suppliers.
Generally supportive because the bill straightforwardly addresses supply-chain security while preserving limited flexibility through waivers.
Sees sensible oversight via required notices and reporting but wants clearer waiver criteria and cost oversight.
Prefers measured implementation to avoid procurement delays and undue cost increases.
Likely supportive because the bill strengthens national security and reduces dependency on risky foreign-controlled supply channels.
Appreciates restrictions targeting non-OEM suppliers and the emphasis on preventing foreign adversary influence.
Some concern about added bureaucracy and procurement flexibility, but national security rationale outweighs those concerns for many conservatives.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, security-focused procurement restriction with bipartisan appeal but potential industry/contracting disruption; could pass alone or be folded into defense authorization.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about market concentration; conservatives emphasize security gains
Narrow, security-focused procurement restriction with bipartisan appeal but potential industry/contracting disruption; could pass alone or…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that is supported by well‑specified definitions, a concrete prohibition, a waiver framework, vendor assistance directio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.