08-06-2025

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations

NoticeView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: The President has extended a national emergency that allows the U.S. government to regulate the export of "dual-use" goods and technologies—items that could have both commercial and military applications. This executive action ensures that the framework for controlling these exports, known as the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), remains in effect.

Money: There is no direct cost or appropriation associated with this notice. However, U.S. export controls have a significant economic impact. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York study estimated that controls on semiconductor-related exports cost affected U.S. suppliers nearly $130 billion in lost market capitalization. The controls are intended to impose costs on adversaries by denying them access to critical technologies.

Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. The most likely effect is on individuals working in the technology, defense, and manufacturing sectors, whose companies must navigate complex regulations to sell products globally. These controls can affect company revenue and, consequently, employment.

Status: The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2025, and continues the national emergency for one year, beginning August 17, 2025. This is an annual renewal that has occurred under multiple presidential administrations.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Presidential Notice is not a new law but a continuation of existing authority. Its core function is to preserve the legal foundation for the U.S. export control system.

Core Provisions:

  • The notice continues for 1 year the national emergency first declared in Executive Order 13222 on August 17, 2001.
  • This action ensures that export control authorities, particularly those related to anti-boycott rules and certain sanctions not fully covered by the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), continue under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
  • By continuing the emergency, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)—the detailed rules governing what can be exported to whom—remain in full force.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The stated purpose is to address the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States" that arose from the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979. According to the White House, this continuation is necessary to:

  1. Exercise vigilance over exports affecting U.S. national security.
  2. Advance U.S. foreign policy, including opposing foreign boycotts (such as the Arab League boycott of Israel).
  3. Protect the U.S. economy from an excessive drain of scarce materials.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Technology (especially semiconductors, AI, quantum computing), Aerospace, Defense, and Manufacturing.
Timeline: The extension is effective from August 17, 2025, to August 17, 2026.
Scope: The regulations apply to any person or company under U.S. jurisdiction that exports, re-exports, or transfers controlled goods, software, or technology.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Original Framework (1979-2001):

The Export Administration Act (EAA) of 1979 was the primary law governing export controls. It was designed to balance national security concerns with the economic benefits of trade. However, it contained a "sunset" provision, meaning it had to be periodically reauthorized by Congress.

The "Emergency" Workaround (2001-2018):

In 2001, Congress failed to reauthorize the EAA. To prevent the entire export control system from collapsing, President George W. Bush declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act allows the President to regulate international commerce during a national emergency. This "workaround" of using emergency powers to maintain export controls was renewed annually by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump.

A Permanent, but Incomplete, Fix (2018-Present):

In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), creating a permanent statutory foundation for most export controls. However, ECRA did not cover all provisions of the old EAA, specifically certain anti-boycott and sanctions authorities (Sections 11A, 11B, and 11C). The law itself states that these specific powers must still be administered under IEEPA. Therefore, the national emergency must be renewed each year to keep those specific authorities active.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Procedural Necessity: This annual renewal is not a new policy debate but a required administrative action to prevent legal gaps in U.S. export control law. Allowing the emergency to lapse would invalidate certain anti-boycott provisions and sanctions authorities.
  • Bipartisan Consensus on Need for Controls: While Democrats and Republicans often disagree on the scope and targets of export controls, there is a broad consensus that a robust system is essential for national security. This renewal is therefore non-controversial.
  • Focus on Strategic Competition: The use of export controls has become a central tool in the strategic competition with China, particularly in restricting access to advanced technologies like semiconductors and AI. This makes maintaining a legally sound export control system a high priority for any administration.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific industries and their employees, while the impact on most Americans is indirect but related to national and economic security.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • National Security: The primary benefit is the continued restriction on the flow of sensitive technology to adversaries, which is intended to protect U.S. military and intelligence advantages.
  • Economic Stability: Proponents argue that preventing rivals from acquiring key technologies protects the long-term health and competitiveness of U.S. high-tech industries.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

For Businesses:

  • Short-term (1-2 years): Companies in affected sectors face significant compliance costs, potential loss of sales to markets like China, and administrative delays in securing export licenses. A New York Fed report found that U.S. companies affected by semiconductor controls experienced a significant drop in revenue and stock valuation.
  • Long-term: Persistent controls can lead foreign customers to "design out" American components, permanently shifting supply chains away from the U.S. It can also spur investment in domestic technology development within targeted countries, creating new competitors.

For Individuals:

  • In Affected Industries: Job security could be impacted by lost revenue from export restrictions.
  • For Consumers: The impact on consumer prices is generally minimal, though supply chain shifts could have unforeseen long-term effects.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: High-tech manufacturers (semiconductors, AI), defense and aerospace companies, research universities, and any business that exports "dual-use" technology.
Secondary Groups: Logistics and shipping companies, financial institutions that underwrite international trade, and foreign companies whose supply chains rely on U.S. technology.
Regional Impact: States with a high concentration of technology and defense industries, such as California, Texas, Arizona, and Virginia, are most affected.

Bottom Line: While you may not notice it, this action continues a policy that shapes the global technology landscape, impacting which U.S. industries thrive and how the nation confronts security threats.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Protecting Security, Ensuring Competitiveness"

Core Stance: Generally supports strong export controls to counter national security threats, particularly from China, but often raises concerns about regulations that unduly burden U.S. businesses and impede their ability to compete globally.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Strong support for using controls to prevent military modernization by adversaries.
  • ⚠️ Concerned that overly broad, unilateral controls (without allied cooperation) can harm U.S. exporters and push allies to develop their own technologies.
  • ✗ Oppose using export controls for reasons seen as extraneous to core national security interests.

Legislative Strategy: Typically, to support the continuation of necessary authorities while conducting oversight to ensure the Commerce Department is not overreaching. They often advocate for clear, narrowly defined rules to enhance predictability for U.S. industry.

Democratic Position: "Principled Security and Human Rights"

Core Stance: Strongly supports using export controls for national security and foreign policy, with an increasing emphasis on incorporating human rights criteria into licensing decisions.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Advocate for robust controls targeting countries like Russia and China and for enforcing sanctions.
  • ✓ Support expanding controls to address human rights abuses, such as restricting the export of surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes.
  • ⚠️ Sometimes raise concerns that controls are not being enforced strongly enough or that loopholes allow adversaries to evade restrictions.

Legislative Strategy: Generally, to push for robust funding and authority for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to enforce controls. They often advocate for expanding the criteria for controls to include human rights and work with international allies to create multilateral control regimes.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's action is based on authority granted by Congress through two laws: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA). The ultimate constitutional authority for Congress to legislate in this area comes from the Commerce Clause.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations..."

Constitutional Implications:

Delegation of Power: Congress has, through IEEPA, delegated to the President the power to regulate foreign commerce upon the declaration of a national emergency.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the President's broad powers under IEEPA. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Court affirmed the President's authority to freeze Iranian assets and suspend legal claims during the Iran hostage crisis, establishing a strong precedent for presidential action in foreign policy emergencies under IEEPA.
Federalism: This action deals with foreign commerce, a power explicitly granted to the federal government, and thus does not raise significant federalism concerns regarding states' rights.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The annual continuation of the national emergency itself is legally sound and unlikely to be successfully challenged. However, specific actions taken under the authority of the EAR—such as denying a specific company an export license or adding an entity to a restricted list—are frequently subject to legal and administrative challenges by affected companies.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION

(To support maintaining robust U.S. export controls)

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the continued use of robust export controls to protect national security. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to ensure the Bureau of Industry and Security is fully funded and supported."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which oversee export controls.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control or the Arms Control Association often advocate for strong controls on sensitive technologies.

TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION

(To oppose the broad use of emergency powers or the economic impact of controls)

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I'm concerned about the economic impact of broad export controls and the indefinite use of emergency powers. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to seek a permanent legislative solution that doesn't rely on a national emergency."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that while some controls are needed, broad restrictions harm American companies and workers, and that Congress should reassert its authority over trade.
  • Join an Organization: Business groups like the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) and the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) advocate for policies that facilitate trade and may provide resources on the economic costs of over-regulation.