The Time to Choose Act of 2025 prohibits federal agencies from contracting with consulting firms that simultaneously provide services to designated "covered foreign entities" unless a strict national security waiver is granted.
Robert Bresnahan
Representative
PA-8
The Time to Choose Act of 2025 aims to eliminate conflicts of interest by prohibiting federal consulting contracts for firms simultaneously working for the U.S. government and designated "covered foreign entities," such as China or Russia. This law requires companies to certify they are not aiding these foreign entities or face contract cancellation and penalties under the False Claims Act. Exceptions are narrowly permitted only if deemed essential for national security and approved by top defense and intelligence officials. The Act mandates no new funding to implement these requirements.
Consulting Firms Must Choose: U.S. Federal Contracts or Work for China and Russia
The “Time to Choose Act of 2025” is straightforward: it forces consulting firms to pick a side. If you want to work for the U.S. federal government, you can’t simultaneously be on the payroll of certain foreign entities the U.S. views as problematic. This isn’t a suggestion; within one year, firms seeking federal consulting contracts must certify they are clean, or they are out of the running.
The Security Tightrope: Stopping the Double Dip
Congress flagged a serious conflict of interest: consulting firms often advise the Department of Defense on U.S. national security strategy while simultaneously advising foreign adversaries—like the governments of China or Russia, or entities sanctioned for terrorism—on how to build up their own capabilities. This bill, primarily targeting firms under the NAICS 5416 code (Management and Technical Consulting Services), aims to close that loophole. For the average taxpayer, this means the money we spend on federal contracts is less likely to be indirectly funding the strategic development of foreign powers that might not have our best interests at heart. Think of it as ensuring the same mechanic isn't building your new security system while also giving the local burglar tips on how to disable it.
The High Cost of Lying
The core mechanism here is certification. When bidding on a federal contract, firms must promise they don't have existing consulting contracts with a “covered foreign entity.” If a firm is caught lying—knowingly submitting false information—the penalties are severe. The contract gets canceled immediately, and the firm faces suspension or being banned from all future federal work. Even worse, they can be hit with penalties under the False Claims Act, which can mean paying back up to three times the damages the government incurred. This puts serious teeth into the compliance requirement; it’s not just a slap on the wrist for getting caught, it’s a potential business-ending event.
When National Security Needs a Waiver
What if the government absolutely needs a specific firm that happens to be working for a covered foreign entity? The bill allows for a rare, high-bar exception called a waiver. An agency head can grant this, but only if the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence agree it’s necessary for U.S. national security, or if no other non-conflicted firm can do the work. This is not easy to get. The waiver only lasts 365 days and can only be extended once for 180 days. Crucially, any single company can only have one active waiver across the entire federal government at any given time. Agencies granting these waivers have massive reporting requirements, including detailing the contractor’s foreign ownership, the scope of the foreign work, and an approved plan to manage the conflict. If you’re a project manager at a federal agency, this means accessing the best talent just got a lot more complicated and administrative.
The Reporting Hook: Whistleblowing as a Requirement
If a firm does snag a waiver, their reporting duties don't stop once the contract is signed. While performing the federal work, if they learn anything through their foreign consulting gig that suggests human rights violations or risks to U.S. economic or national security, they must immediately report that information to the U.S. agency that granted the waiver. This turns the consulting firm into a mandatory, if reluctant, intelligence source on their foreign client’s activities. This provision is designed to ensure the U.S. government benefits from the uncomfortable proximity created by the waiver, using the conflict of interest as a potential tripwire for national security threats.
The Fine Print: Loopholes and Funding
While the bill is tough, it does contain a potential loophole in its definitions. The prohibition on “consulting services” specifically excludes work related to helping foreign entities comply with local legal, audit, tax, or reporting requirements. This means firms could potentially maintain lucrative foreign relationships by reclassifying their work under the guise of compliance, rather than strategic advice. Furthermore, the bill explicitly states that no additional funding is provided to implement these new rules. Federal agencies will have to absorb the costs and increased administrative burden of creating the new rules, reviewing certifications, and managing the complex waiver process using existing budgets—a common challenge when Congress mandates new regulatory oversight.