To Prohibit The Procurement By A Governmental Entity Of An Electric Vehicle Or A Component Of An Electric Vehicle That Was Manufactured In Whole Or In Part Using Forced Labor.
HB1683 amends Arkansas procurement law to prohibit governmental entities from buying electric vehicles or EV components unless the manufacturer provides a sworn certification that no part of the vehicle or component was produced using forced labor. The bill defines “forced labor” broadly to include labor obtained by coercion, labor tied to protected characteristics, nonvoluntary labor, and certain hazardous child labor. It applies to state agencies, local governments, school districts, public colleges and universities, and other state- or locally operated entities.
The bill also creates enforcement and penalty provisions. If a manufacturer or seller knowingly provides false or misleading information in the required certification, it may face a civil penalty of at least $10,000 per false statement or one-half of the purchase price, whichever is greater. Governmental entities that knowingly violate the law may owe the state the greater of $10,000 per false statement or the full purchase price, and individual employees or board members who knowingly authorize a prohibited purchase may face personal liability or fines. The law applies to procurement contracts entered into, amended, or renewed on or after the effective date.
HB1683 would add a new section to Title 25 of the Arkansas Code governing state and local purchasing, specifically restricting public procurement of electric vehicles and EV components tied to forced labor in the supply chain. It affects a wide range of public entities, including state agencies, political subdivisions, school districts, and public higher-education institutions, and requires vendors to provide sworn certifications about sourcing and production practices. The bill creates new civil penalties and personal liability provisions, expanding procurement compliance obligations and potential enforcement exposure for both vendors and public officials.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the legislature, as reflected by strong third-reading passage in both chambers: 74-14 in the House and 19-9 in the Senate. The bill’s findings frame the measure as a human-rights and taxpayer-protection issue, and the absence of recorded committee opposition or transcript debate suggests limited public procedural controversy in the available record. Overall, the voting pattern indicates majority support, though not unanimous agreement.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad procurement restriction and its enforcement structure. Supporters would view it as preventing taxpayer dollars from supporting forced labor and child labor in EV supply chains, especially involving Xinjiang-linked materials and cobalt mining. Potential critics may be concerned about the practical burden of supply-chain certification, the breadth of the forced-labor definition, the risk of procurement delays, and the unusually strong penalties, including personal liability for employees and board members. The bill also implicates broader debates over foreign sourcing, China-related trade restrictions, and whether state procurement rules should mirror or exceed federal forced-labor standards.