What This Bill Does
This bill would bar entities integral to the national interests of the United States from being pulled into foreign sustainability due diligence requirements, including the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. In practical terms, it is aimed at preventing U.S. companies and other covered entities from having to change business practices, disclose information, or face penalties to satisfy overseas environmental and human-rights compliance regimes. The main effect would be to limit how foreign regulatory systems can reach into U.S. commerce. The bill is written as a broad protection against foreign sustainability mandates rather than a narrow sector-specific exemption.
- Blocks covered U.S. entities from participating in foreign sustainability due diligence regimes
- Specifically targets the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
- Applies to entities described as integral to the national interests of the United States
- Would reduce exposure to foreign compliance, reporting, and enforcement demands
Who This Bill Affects
If you work for, own, or invest in a company that does business in Europe or has a multinational supply chain, this bill could reduce the chance that your firm must spend money adapting to foreign sustainability due diligence rules. That could mean fewer reporting demands, lower compliance costs, and less legal risk tied to overseas standards. If you are not connected to an internationally active business, the bill is unlikely to change your daily life directly.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisOfficial Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 9385
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- To prohibit entities integral to the national interests of the United States from participating in any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive of the European Union, and for other purposes.
- Policy area
- Foreign Policy
- Latest action
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. (June 22, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 23, 2026
Who Supports & Opposes This
- Multinational manufacturers and exporters They argue foreign due diligence rules can impose expensive, overlapping compliance systems that force U.S. firms to spend time and money on paperwork, audits, and supplier monitoring for markets outside the United States. They also say American companies should answer to U.S. law, not be pushed into following foreign policy choices.
- Trade-focused business owners They contend that added foreign reporting and verification requirements can raise operating costs and make U.S. firms less competitive abroad. A prohibition would, in their view, simplify cross-border business and reduce legal uncertainty.
- Sovereignty-minded policymakers They see the bill as a way to stop other governments from using sustainability regulation to reach into U.S. commerce and dictate how American businesses manage their supply chains. The argument is that domestic firms should not be compelled to serve foreign regulatory agendas.
- Human rights and environmental accountability advocates They argue due diligence rules are meant to identify forced labor, environmental damage, and other harms in global supply chains, and that blocking participation could weaken transparency. From this view, the bill protects corporate convenience at the expense of accountability.
- Companies with large overseas sales They may worry that refusing to comply with foreign requirements could make it harder to access major markets, win contracts, or satisfy foreign partners. Even if the bill reduces some U.S.-side burden, it could create international business friction.
- Investor and ESG compliance professionals They often support standardized disclosure and risk-management frameworks and may argue that the bill would fragment compliance expectations across jurisdictions. That could make it harder for firms and investors to compare supply-chain risks and governance practices.
Key Implications
-
““prohibit entities integral to the national interests of the United States””
This signals that the bill is aimed at a defined class of U.S.-important entities rather than every private actor, so the main effect falls on businesses with strategic or economic importance.
-
““participating in any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation””
Covered entities would be barred from engaging with foreign compliance systems that require sustainability screening, reporting, or oversight tied to supply chains and operations.
-
““including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive of the European Union””
The bill specifically targets the EU framework, suggesting lawmakers are responding to a real and prominent overseas regulatory regime rather than a hypothetical one.
-
““and for other purposes””
This catch-all phrase usually means the bill may also include related enforcement, definitions, or administrative provisions that reinforce the main restriction.
Latest Status
June 22, 2026
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.