House passes bill to restrict ships tied to expropriated foreign ports

The House passed H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026, after roughly one hour of floor debate and a recorded vote of 247 yeas to 164 nays. Supporters said the bill gives the president a narrowly tailored tool to respond when a foreign government unlawfully expropriates U.S.-owned port, harbor or marine-terminal infrastructure; opponents called the measure an inappropriate, broad intrusion into an international property dispute.

Representative Pfluger of Texas, the bill sponsor, said the legislation is “surgical” and necessary to protect U.S. investments, citing the case of Vulcan Materials Company in Mexico. “American companies operating abroad should not have to fear arbitrary government actions that undermine their property rights,” Pfluger said, arguing the bill includes exceptions for emergencies and off-ramps if property is returned or compensation is paid.

Ranking Member Larsen of Washington led floor opposition, warning that the Coast Guard already enforces maritime law and that the bill would add burdensome new duties. “HR 784 does not help the Coast Guard address violations of the law at sea. Instead, the bill inserts the Coast Guard into what is a property dispute between a U.S. company and the Mexican government that, if anything, will only add to the Coast Guard’s burden,” Larsen said, and he cited Coast Guard operational statistics from fiscal year 2025 as context for his concern.

Other supporters, including Representatives Carbajal (California), Moore (Alabama), McGuire (Virginia), Sewell and members of the Alabama delegation, framed the bill as a targeted response after diplomatic and arbitration efforts failed. Carbajal said the bill would “identify foreign ports, harbors and marine terminals where American‑owned property has been expropriated” and restrict goods or passenger vessels that used those facilities from entering U.S. ports. Supporters repeatedly pointed to the Vulcan Materials dispute as the motivating example and described the measure as a means to protect American jobs, supply chains and investment.

Opponents, led on the floor by Representative Garcia (Illinois), argued that the dispute is subject to resolution under the USMCA and international arbitration and that congressional action could coerce foreign governments and complicate environmental or public‑health protections those governments assert. Garcia urged colleagues to reject the bill and said the measure could have far‑reaching foreign‑policy implications if used beyond its stated target.

The Clerk reported the bill as an amendment to Title 46, United States Code. After debate, the House ordered a recorded electronic vote; the Clerk announced the tally as 247 yeas and 164 nays and the Chair declared the bill passed. The motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The House then recessed and later took and passed an adjournment motion (recorded vote 208–197) and adjourned until 9:30 p.m.

H.R. 7084 was presented and debated on the floor and now proceeds in the legislative process according to House rules; the transcript does not specify the bill’s next procedural step beyond passage in the House.