Latest action: Held at the desk.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Filed in the Senate.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Bill aims to strengthen and secure America's semiconductor manufacturing and supply chains.
The problem
The U.S. relies heavily on foreign countries for semiconductor chips critical to defense, healthcare, and technology. Supply chain disruptions threaten national security and economic competitiveness.
The proposal
Bill establishes policies and likely funding mechanisms to boost domestic semiconductor production, reduce foreign dependence, and improve supply chain resilience through coordination and planning.
The impact
Semiconductor manufacturers, tech companies, defense contractors, and consumers benefit from stronger supply chains. Taxpayers may fund initiatives. Foreign chip suppliers face reduced U.S. market access.
Reduces dependence on foreign semiconductors for military and critical infrastructure. Ensures the U.S. can manufacture essential chips domestically during global crises or conflicts. Protects defense capabilities from supply disruptions.
Encourages chip factories and tech jobs in America. Supports high-wage manufacturing employment and economic growth. Keeps advanced technology development within the country.
Strengthens U.S. position against China and other competitors in semiconductor technology. Helps American companies maintain technological leadership. Creates long-term economic advantages.
Domestic supply reduces dependence on global market fluctuations. Stabilizes chip prices and availability for businesses and consumers. Protects against supply shocks.
Likely requires substantial taxpayer funding for manufacturing facilities and subsidies. May increase federal spending and national debt. Resources diverted from other priorities.
Domestic chips may cost more than foreign alternatives initially. Higher prices could be passed to consumers for electronics and devices. Protectionist policies often increase costs.
Reducing foreign chip imports may anger trading partners and trigger retaliation. Could damage international relationships and harm other American export industries. May escalate trade conflicts.
Government-directed industrial policy may be less efficient than free market competition. Could support inefficient producers or technologies. May slow innovation by picking winners.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.