The House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation targeting Western Hemisphere countries that seize U.S.-owned port facilities, delivering an overwhelming 247-164 victory for a bill designed to protect American business interests abroad.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act (H.R. 7084) passed on March 27 after months of committee work and bipartisan negotiations. The legislation, introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) on January 15 with four original co-sponsors including Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-California) , authorizes the president to prohibit vessels from entering U.S. waters if they have visited ports seized from American companies.
“American companies operating abroad should not have to fear arbitrary government actions that undermine their property rights,” Pfluger said following the vote. The Texas congressman framed the legislation as essential to protecting American economic and national security interests.
Under the bill, the president may prohibit the entry and operation of vessels that have called at ports, harbors or marine terminals previously owned by U.S. entities but nationalized or expropriated by Western Hemisphere governments with free trade agreements with the United States.
The legislation drew sharp opposition from Democratic lawmakers who argued it overreaches into foreign sovereignty. “This bill limits the ability of foreign governments to adopt measures that protect their communities and their environment, essentially coercing those foreign governments to prioritize the interests of U.S. corporations over their people,” said Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Illinois), who voted against the measure.
House Republican leadership rallied behind Pfluger’s initiative as part of a broader effort to strengthen American economic leverage globally. “To safeguard our country’s economic growth and national security, it’s imperative that we defend the property rights of American companies abroad,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana).
The Congressional Budget Office estimates minimal fiscal impact from the legislation. Implementing administrative requirements would cost the Coast Guard and State Department less than $500,000 over the 2026-2031 period , while changes in civil penalty collections would total less than $500,000 over the 2026-2036 period .
The bill emerged from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in January after a 36-22 committee vote that reflected the partisan tensions surrounding the measure. Committee Republicans praised the legislation as necessary protection for American investment, while Democrats raised concerns about potential diplomatic complications.
The legislation specifically targets scenarios where U.S. companies have invested in port infrastructure in Latin American countries with free trade agreements, only to see those facilities nationalized by foreign governments. The bill provides exceptions for vessels experiencing genuine emergencies but otherwise creates a mechanism for economic retaliation against countries that seize American assets.
“When countries violate trade agreements and illegally seize assets from U.S. companies, it puts American job security, economic security, and national security at risk. This legislation is critical because it ensures there are enforceable consequences for those actions,” Pfluger said in a statement.
The timing of the vote reflects growing congressional concern about American business vulnerabilities in an increasingly complex global economy. With supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions affecting international commerce, lawmakers from both parties have shown interest in protecting U.S. economic interests abroad, though they disagree on methods.
The bill prohibits entry by vessels that have accessed foreign ports previously controlled by U.S. citizens and later nationalized by certain foreign governments, with violations subject to civil penalties assessed by the Coast Guard .
The measure now advances to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain. “I will continue advocating for it until it passes through the Senate and is signed into law,” Pfluger said, expressing optimism about the bill’s bipartisan support in the House.
Senate leadership has not indicated when the legislation might receive floor consideration, with the chamber focused on government funding issues and judicial nominations as Congress returned from recess this week. The bill’s fate may depend on whether Senate Democrats view it as necessary economic protection or problematic interference in foreign affairs.