A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has formally urged the Trump administration to bar American citizens and companies from working with Chinese and Russian civilian intelligence agencies, warning that a longstanding regulatory loophole is enabling foreign adversaries to acquire advanced US surveillance, cyber, and artificial intelligence technology. The letter, addressed to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, calls for the enforcement of export-control powers that Congress authorised in 2022 but which have never been fully implemented.

The Bipartisan Coalition Behind the Push

The group spans both parties and chambers. Signatories include Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Peter Welch, Republican Senator John Cornyn, Republican Representatives Pat Harrigan and Michael McCaul, and Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs. The cross-aisle composition signals that concerns over foreign intelligence exploitation of American expertise are not a partisan issue.

The Loophole at the Centre of the Concern

Current US export-control rules restrict Americans from assisting military intelligence agencies in China, Russia, and other designated countries. However, the rules do not effectively cover those nations' civilian intelligence and security organisations — a distinction that, according to the lawmakers, foreign agencies have exploited.

'As a result, foreign intelligence agencies in many countries can still legally hire consultants in the United States and buy advanced US surveillance, cyber, and artificial intelligence technology, for use in their intelligence operations to target Americans, and operate against American national security and foreign policy interests,' the lawmakers wrote.

The Trump administration imposed export controls on dealings with military intelligence agencies in 2021, but the law at the time limited those restrictions to military bodies. Congress passed legislation in 2022 authorising similar controls over foreign civilian intelligence agencies. The Biden administration proposed implementing regulations in 2024, but those rules were never finalised before the change in government.

Key Proposals from the Lawmakers

The lawmakers have put forward several specific recommendations for the Commerce Department. First, they proposed a 'trusted countries list' — comprising nations with strong human-rights records that do not conduct surveillance against the United States. Americans would require a government licence before conducting business with intelligence or security agencies in countries not on that list.

The group also flagged that the country lists proposed under the previous administration omitted several governments accused of human-rights abuses or espionage against the US. Additionally, they called for closing what they described as due-diligence loopholes used by private surveillance contractors, noting that spyware and cyber-surveillance companies frequently conceal their end-customers to sidestep regulatory restrictions.

To address this, the lawmakers recommended that foreign surveillance companies be required to provide American suppliers with sworn declarations confirming that their clients do not include intelligence or security agencies outside trusted countries.

Expanding the Technology Scope

The proposed controls go beyond facial-recognition systems — which were already included in the 2024 draft regulations. The lawmakers want restrictions extended to gait recognition, cardiac-signature recognition, and systems that classify individuals by race, sex, or ethnicity — technologies they argue could be used by repressive governments to track or categorise populations at scale.

The US Commerce Department governs the export, re-export, and transfer of sensitive American goods, software, and technology through its Export Administration Regulations, which can also cover services rendered by American citizens or companies when those services pose national-security or foreign-policy risks.

What Happens Next

The ball is now in the Commerce Department's court. Whether Secretary Lutnick moves to finalise the long-delayed regulations — or proposes a revised framework — will determine how quickly the loophole is closed. With bipartisan pressure mounting and the 2022 statutory authority already in place, advocates argue there is no legislative barrier to action, only an administrative one.