BIS Ceases Work, Communication With Most Industry Advisory Committees

BIS has told some members of the six committees that select TAC charters won't be renewed and that the agency won’t be hosting more committee meetings. In interviews, people with knowledge of the situation -- who all requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak about the TACs -- said they fear BIS is losing a critical forum that it has historically used to avoid publishing unclear or broad export regulations that risk unnecessarily harming American companies.

The people, including multiple TAC members, also expressed confusion about why BIS is ending the committees, noting that President Donald Trump campaigned on purging the federal rule book of complex regulations that place onerous compliance burdens on American companies. Several TAC members stressed that one of their main missions is to help the government craft clear rules that don’t unintentionally undercut the competitiveness of U.S. exporters.

“The administration is always saying they want to reduce the burden on industry from regulation, and this is how industry provides its feedback on exports,” one TAC member said in an interview. “You would think it's squarely aligned with Trump's stated goals.”

Another member said they believe eliminating the TACs could lead BIS to miss unintended regulatory errors that otherwise would have been caught by asking for confidential feedback from the TACs, whose members sign nondisclosure agreements.

“Other countries are listening to how export controls are putting them at a disadvantage competitively and adjusting within reason what needs to be adjusted to make sure that they aren't harmed,” the person said. “U.S. industry would be losing that voice.”

Although BIS can still gather feedback on new regulations through public Federal Register notices, the agency has increasingly bypassed the "proposed" stage for new rules, opting instead for interim final or final rules, with new controls taking effect within weeks or even immediately (see 2505190014).

A BIS spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment. Under the “guiding principles” section of its website, BIS says it “must take great care to ensure that its regulations do not impose unreasonable restrictions on legitimate international commercial activity that is necessary for the health of U.S. industry.” It also says it “strives to work in partnership with the private sector,” adding that “U.S. security cannot be achieved without the active cooperation of the private sector.”

“At the same time, the health of U.S. industry is dependent on U.S. security -- of our borders, our critical infrastructures, and our computer networks,” the BIS website says. “The symbiotic relationship between industry and security should be reflected in the formulation, application, and enforcement of Bureau rules and policies.”

The news of the BIS pivot away from the TACs began to spread among members more than six months after the agency began last summer restricting the public sessions of the quarterly committee meetings, which also include a closed-door portion reserved only for TAC members and government employees.

At the time, BIS limited most public portions of the meetings, which previously ran an hour-plus, to 15 minutes and barred agency officials from giving their usual public updates. One open meeting in September of the Regulations and Procedures TAC (RPTAC) -- which for years featured hourslong sessions that typically included regulatory updates from BIS and the Census Bureau, presentations on export controls from leading trade associations, and a public comment period -- lasted 36 seconds (see 2509120021).

Now, virtually no official TAC meetings with government employees are being held. BIS hasn’t published a notice in the Federal Register to schedule one since August, and it recently took down the page on its website that listed the TACs’ upcoming meetings.

BIS plans to end or limit each of the TACs except for the one on Emerging Technology, according to people familiar with the matter. The two-year charters for the Materials and Equipment TAC and the Sensors and Instrumentation TAC expired last year, while the Transportation and Related Equipment TAC expires in August. The Information Systems TAC is set to expire in 2027.

The charter for the RPTAC, which regularly had over 100 attendees during its hourslong public sessions, is scheduled to expire in August. Many RPTAC members still haven’t been informed about the BIS decision despite sending the agency questions about the status of their committee, according to people familiar with the matter.

RPTAC members have continued to meet virtually on their own each month, but no BIS official attends. Some other TACs haven’t met in months.

One TAC member said in an interview that BIS hasn’t answered repeated questions about whether their group is still functioning and has ceased virtually all communication with the TAC about its work. “We've effectively been shut down, I would say,” the person said. “We have been allowed to do nothing.”

The person said their group had regularly recommended export control updates to BIS in previous years, and many of those suggestions led to regulatory changes. But they said the agency has been silent over the last year.

“BIS won't even give us a status update of thumbs up, thumbs down,” the person said. “We’re not allowed any information regarding what's happening.”

BIS has historically used the TACs, in part, to solicit recommendations for export control proposals at various multilateral forums, including the 42-member Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group. One TAC member described their work as “making sure the measures that are proposed through the various international treaty organizations don't mess up U.S. industry.”

“I don't know what they're going to do with us, or if they just won't get input from industry on these things,” the person said. “There really isn't another path for feedback on a lot of this stuff.”

Former and current BIS career staff, along with industry representatives, have said that they feel the agency’s political leadership is distrustful of business officials whose advice BIS has typically used to avoid harming American exporters in relation to their foreign competitors (see 2504140055). In a closed-door town hall meeting with BIS staff early last year, Undersecretary Jeffrey Kessler urged officials to limit conversations with exporters about anything other than pending license applications (see 2503280039).

At the same time, multiple TAC members noted that the Biden administration also occasionally eschewed TAC or public feedback on important new regulations. For example, semiconductor industry executives have voiced frustration over what they said was the agency’s lack of engagement with exporters before publishing a string of complex China-related chip rules starting in 2022 (see 2211040051).

“There's a bunch of stuff that happened even in previous administrations that should have had input from the TAC and then didn't,” one person said. “This is there to make sure we don't accidentally do economic harm to our industry.”

Another member said the TACs are useful because they serve as forums where industry is represented in front of regulators by multiple voices -- sometimes even competing companies.

“You don't want to change regulation internationally or nationally that's going to be beneficial to just one company. You want it to be good policy,” the person said. “Pulling together the community that produces a particular item and then coming up with a proposal that makes sense for everyone helps create good regulatory changes.”

If BIS no longer solicits TAC recommendations, one member said, that member plans to try to reach out to foreign governments that are also members of the same multilateral export control organizations as the U.S. That could be an indirect way to get BIS to adopt those changes, they said.

“Assuming BIS is still participating [in multilateral forums] and not turning down proposals, those changes would still happen. They would just happen via the international way, as opposed to the direct U.S. way,” the person said. “But it's not going to be an easy transition to not utilizing the U.S. government."