Leveling the Playing Field 2.0 Act
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMs. Smith (for Mr. Young (for himself, Ms. Smith, Mr. …
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Leveling the Playing Field 2.0 Act strengthens U.S. trade remedy laws to make it harder for foreign producers to evade antidumping and countervailing duties. It closes loopholes in how the Commerce Department investigates unfair trade practices, addresses cross-border subsidies from third countries, treats currency manipulation as an actionable subsidy, and increases enforcement against duty evasion.
Who Benefits and How
U.S. domestic manufacturers (especially steel, aluminum, chemicals, and other trade-sensitive industries) benefit significantly. They gain faster investigations when filing successive trade cases, stronger tools to combat subsidized foreign competition, and new authority for Commerce to disregard distorted foreign production costs. The bill makes it easier to win trade cases and harder for foreign competitors to evade duties.
Trade lawyers, customs brokers, and compliance professionals benefit from increased business as the more complex rules and certification requirements generate more legal and consulting work.
U.S. surety and bonding companies gain new revenue opportunities from requirements that nonresident importers post substantial bonds.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Foreign exporters and multinational manufacturers face higher costs through increased duties and compliance burdens. Companies from countries with state intervention in their economies (particularly China) will face higher dumping margins as Commerce gains authority to disregard their reported costs.
U.S. importers face significant new compliance requirements, including mandatory certifications about whether merchandise is subject to trade orders. False certifications can trigger suspended liquidation, cash deposits, and even criminal penalties.
Nonresident importers (foreign-based importers of record) must now maintain U.S.-based assets and post bonds sufficient to cover the highest possible duty rates on their imports.
U.S. consumers and downstream businesses may face higher prices for imported goods as duties increase and supply chains become more expensive to maintain.
Key Provisions
- Successive Investigations: Creates special rules making it easier to initiate and win follow-up trade cases against products similar to those already under investigation
- Cross-Border Subsidies: Allows Commerce to cumulate subsidies from third countries and multinational corporations, closing a major loophole
- Particular Market Situations: Greatly expands Commerce authority to disregard foreign production costs distorted by government intervention, subsidies, or non-enforcement of labor/environmental laws
- Currency Undervaluation: Makes currency manipulation an actionable countervailable subsidy that Commerce must investigate when alleged
- Importer Certifications: Requires importers to certify their merchandise and inputs are not subject to trade duties, with penalties for false statements
- Nonresident Importer Bonds: Requires foreign-based importers to maintain U.S. assets and post bonds at highest possible duty rates
- Anti-Circumvention: Establishes strict timelines for circumvention inquiries and grants Commerce independent authority to determine country of origin
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Strengthens U.S. trade remedy laws by enhancing antidumping and countervailing duty enforcement mechanisms, addressing evasion, cross-border subsidies, and currency undervaluation to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Close loopholes in existing trade remedy laws that allow foreign producers and importers to evade antidumping and countervailing duties through successive investigations, circumvention, cross-border subsidies, and currency manipulation."
Likely Beneficiaries
- U.S. domestic manufacturers (steel, aluminum, chemicals, etc.)
- U.S. labor unions in affected industries
- Domestic producers competing against subsidized imports
- Trade lawyers and consultants (more cases/complexity)
Likely Burden Bearers
- Foreign exporters and multinational manufacturers
- U.S. importers of affected merchandise
- U.S. retailers and distributors relying on imported goods
- U.S. consumers (higher prices)
- Foreign governments accused of subsidizing or currency manipulation
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "the_commission"
- → International Trade Commission (ITC)
- "the_administering_authority"
- → Department of Commerce
- "the_administering_authority"
- → Department of Commerce
- "the_commissioner"
- → Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
- "the_administering_authority"
- → Department of Commerce
- "the_administering_authority"
- → Department of Commerce
- "the_commissioner"
- → Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
- "the_administering_authority"
- → Department of Commerce
Note: The 'administering authority' consistently refers to the Department of Commerce throughout all titles.
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
A person, firm, or corporation that owns or controls, directly or indirectly, facilities for the production of subject merchandise in two or more foreign countries.
A circumstance or set of circumstances that prevents a proper comparison of prices or distorts costs of production, including government intervention, export restrictions, subsidies, non-enforcement of labor/environmental laws, and non-competitive arrangements.
An importer of record that has a principal place of business located outside the customs territory of the United States or that does not have a significant presence in the United States.
An ongoing investigation in which an affirmative determination has been made by the Commission with respect to imports of merchandise that are the same or similar to imports subject to a successive investigation.
A completed investigation with an affirmative determination issued not more than 2 years before the date of initiation of the successive investigation.
An investigation initiated by the administering authority following a petition filed pursuant to section 702(f) or 732(f).
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology