A provision that would protect U.S. markets, consumers, and national economic security by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to study the transparency of PRC-controlled broker-dealers and investment advisors registered in the United States.
Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to study the transparency of broker-dealers and investment advisors in the U.S. who are controlled by the People's Republic of China.
Occurrences
Senators McCormick and Cortez Masto Introduce Legislation to Protect the USMCA from Harmful Chinese Investment ... which would direct the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to prioritize North American alignment on foreign investment screening during the upcoming joint review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This legislation would strengthen U.S. national security by prioritizing better alignment with Canada and Mexico on the risks of investment from the People’s Republic of China.
S.2552 | PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act
S.3292 | Platform Accountability and Transparency Act Latest Action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S.3405 | PRC Financial Intermediary Review Act Latest Action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a study regarding certain brokers and dealers that are controlled by or organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, and for other purposes.
Evidence
Senator Dave McCormick and Senator John Fetterman introduced the PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act, saying it would give financial regulators time to evaluate the impact on U.S. consumer protection. The release says U.S. regulators, including the SEC and FINRA, lack authority to conduct enforcement actions or examinations in mainland China.
The SEC notice says that, amid bipartisan concern about Chinese companies on U.S. exchanges, bills introduced in Congress have continued to raise bipartisan concerns about broker-dealers affiliated with China and the risks that China's financial sector poses to U.S. and global financial systems, citing S.2552, the PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act.
Congress.gov lists S.3405, the PRC Financial Intermediary Review Act, sponsored by Sen. David McCormick and introduced on 2025-12-09. The latest action is referral to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the tracker status is Introduced.
Congress.gov lists S.2552, the PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act, sponsored by Sen. David McCormick and introduced on 2025-07-30. The latest action is referral to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the tracker status is Introduced.
McCormick’s Senate office announced that he and Sen. Fetterman introduced the PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act, saying the bill would give regulators time to evaluate effects on consumer protection and retail investors. The release also states that SEC and FINRA lack examination or enforcement authority in mainland China.
The Congress.gov tracker entries for the relevant McCormick bills show only the Introduced step completed; later steps such as passed Senate, passed House, to President, and became law are not completed.
Assessments
McCormick introduced or advanced related same-term legislation addressing PRC-controlled broker-dealers and investment advisers, including measures aimed at regulatory review and transparency concerns. However, the evidence shows the relevant bills remained at the introduced/referred stage and were not enacted, and there is no proof that the SEC was legally required to conduct the promised study or that such a study was completed. This counts as a serious legislative attempt, not fulfillment.
McCormick made a concrete same-term legislative effort by introducing the PRC Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Moratorium Act with Senator Fetterman, addressing PRC-controlled broker-dealers and investment advisers and prompting regulator review concerns. However, the evidence does not show that Congress enacted a requirement for the SEC to study transparency, nor that the SEC completed such a study. The available official/regulatory evidence still treats the issue as an unresolved policy concern rather than a delivered mandate or completed study. Because there was a serious legislative attempt but the promised outcome was not delivered, this is best scored as never with an effort badge.