Decoupling from Foreign Adversarial Battery Dependence Act
SB 450, the “Decoupling from Foreign Adversarial Battery Dependence Act,” would bar the Department of Homeland Security from using appropriated or otherwise available funds to procure batteries produced by certain foreign entities beginning October 1, 2027. The bill specifically names several Chinese battery and energy companies, including CATL, BYD, Envision Energy, EVE Energy, Gotion High-tech, and Hithium, and also covers entities on certain federal restricted lists, Chinese military companies identified by the Department of Defense, and subsidiaries or successors of those entities.
The bill defines a battery as covered not only when the named entity makes the final product, but also when it produces a majority of the battery’s components. It includes two waiver pathways: one if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines the batteries pose no national security, data, or infrastructure risk and there is no comparable alternative available at similar cost and quality from a non-covered entity, and another for batteries used solely for research, evaluation, training, testing, or analysis. Any waiver must be reported to Congress within 15 days. The bill also requires DHS to submit a report within 180 days of enactment on the mission and cost impacts of the restriction across major DHS components, including CBP, ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and CISA.
If enacted, the bill would add a procurement restriction affecting DHS acquisition policy and could require the department to shift supply chains away from certain Chinese-linked battery manufacturers and other restricted entities. It would also create a reporting and waiver framework that could influence how DHS evaluates battery sourcing for operational equipment, infrastructure, and technology systems, while potentially increasing compliance and procurement costs.
The available context suggests a generally supportive, national-security-focused posture toward the bill, with the measure introduced by Senators Scott and Hassan and referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee without recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials. The bill’s structure, including explicit waivers and a cost-impact report, indicates an effort to balance security concerns with operational flexibility and fiscal awareness.
The main points of contention are likely to center on supply-chain security versus procurement practicality. Supporters would emphasize reducing dependence on foreign adversarial battery suppliers, especially entities linked to China, forced labor concerns, or military ties. Potential critics may question whether the restrictions could raise costs, limit available alternatives, or disrupt DHS missions, which is why the bill includes waivers for no-risk procurements, lack of alternatives, and research/testing uses. The required DHS report on mission and cost impacts suggests lawmakers anticipate possible operational tradeoffs.