PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 15, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10736 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10736 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10736 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10736 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Safeguarding Technology from CCP Influence Act would bar federal entities from acquiring computers or printers when the manufacturer or a company offering the equipment is officially determined to have specified connections to China’s government. The restriction would apply to contracts and other agreements entered into, renewed, or extended after enactment. The President could waive it under a national-security provision, although the wording of that exception is unclear.
This Act may be cited as the Safeguarding Technology from CCP Influence Act.
Except as provided in subsection (b), the head of a Federal entity may not acquire any computer or printer if the manufacturer, bidder, or offeror is a covered Chinese entity.
This section shall apply with respect to any contract or other agreement entered into, renewed, or extended after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The President may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the President finds such action is contrary to the national security of the United States.
The proposed acquisition ban would bind the head of each federal entity. A covered manufacturer, bidder, or offeror would be enough to trigger the restriction, subject to the presidential waiver.
Except as provided in subsection (b), the head of a Federal entity may not acquire any computer or printer if the manufacturer, bidder, or offeror is a covered Chinese entity.
The Secretary of Defense would determine which entities are covered, consulting either the Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Coverage would extend beyond Chinese government ownership or control to direction, subcontracting, affiliation, or other connections to that government.
The term covered Chinese entity means an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, determines to be an entity owned, controlled, directed, or subcontracted by, affiliated with, or otherwise connected to, the Government of the People’s Republic of China.
“Manufacturer” would include the company making the finished product, entities subcontracting with it to assist production, entities directing production, and its parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates. This would make the restriction reach beyond the final assembler.
The term manufacturer means— (A) the entity that transforms raw materials, miscellaneous parts, or components into the end item; (B) an entity that subcontracts with the entity described in subparagraph (A) for purposes of assisting the entity described in such subparagraph in transforming raw materials, miscellaneous parts, or components into the end item; (C) an entity that otherwise directs the entity described in subparagraph (A) to transform raw materials, miscellaneous parts, or components into the end item; or (D) any parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of the entity described in subparagraph (A).
Covered computers would include high-speed data-processing devices and directly related data-storage or communications facilities. Automated typewriters, typesetters, portable handheld calculators, and similar devices would be excluded.
The term computer— (A) means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device; and (B) does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable handheld calculator, or other similar device.
The printer definition would cover specified desktop, multifunction, all-in-one, floor-standing, and household devices using various printing technologies. It also refers to a printer-and-fax combination “taken out of service.” Exclusions would cover point-of-sale receipt printers, printing calculators, label makers, and printers embedded in products outside the listed categories.
The term printer— (A) means a desktop printer, a multifunction printer copier, and a printer and fax combination taken out of service that may or may not be designed to reside on a work surface;
(B) includes— (i) a device that uses various print technology, including laser and LED (electrographic), ink jet, dot matrix, thermal, and digital sublimation; (ii) a multi-function or all-in-one device that performs different tasks, including copying, scanning, faxing, and printing; and (iii) a floor-standing printer, a printer with an optional floor stand, or a household printer;
(C) does not include a point-of-sale receipt printer, a calculator with printing capability, a label maker, or a non-standalone printer that is embedded into a product that is not described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
The President could waive the ban after making a determination and certifying it to Congress. The text requires a finding that “such action” is contrary to U.S. national security, but does not clearly identify whether that phrase refers to the prohibition, an acquisition, or the waiver itself.
The President may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the President finds such action is contrary to the national security of the United States.
The restriction would apply to contracts and other agreements entered into, renewed, or extended after enactment. This means renewals and extensions of existing agreements would also fall within its timing rule.
This section shall apply with respect to any contract or other agreement entered into, renewed, or extended after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied October 15, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 5, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-15T19:27:05Z. 2026-10-05: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2026-10-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in other materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The equipment definitions and general waiver authority do not, on this evidence, establish such a benefit. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI