New COUNTER Act Mandates 180-Day Deadline for US Strategy to Block PRC Overseas Military Bases

This new piece of legislation, officially dubbed the Combating PRC Overseas and Unlawful Networked Threats through Enhanced Resilience Act of 2025 (or the COUNTER Act), is all about national security strategy. In short, it mandates a major, coordinated effort by the U.S. government to actively counter the People's Republic of China’s (PRC) ongoing attempts to build military bases and logistics networks outside its borders. Within 180 days of the bill passing, the Executive Branch must deliver a detailed, actionable strategy to Congress that identifies key hot spots and lays out exactly how the U.S. plans to stop them.

Why Congress Is Worried: The Global Military Footprint

Congress is basing this bill on the finding that the PRC is systematically trying to set up permanent military and intelligence infrastructure globally. They point to real-world examples, like the existing base in Djibouti and the joint support center in Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base, as evidence that this isn't just theory. The core concern is that this 'PRC global basing'—defined as any physical spot outside China used by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or security forces for potential power projection—threatens the U.S. military’s ability to move freely and protect its interests worldwide (Sec. 2).

For the average person, this isn't about local zoning laws; it’s about the global stability that underpins the economy. When international waters and key trade routes are potentially threatened by military expansion, it affects everything from supply chains to the cost of goods.

The 180-Day Action Plan: Strategy and Intelligence

Under Section 5, the bill sets a clear timeline for action. First, the Director of National Intelligence must produce a classified report within 180 days, analyzing the risks these PRC bases pose to the U.S. and its allies, specifically looking at how they could hinder our freedom of movement. This is the intelligence baseline that forces the government to quantify the threat.

Simultaneously, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense must deliver a comprehensive strategy. This strategy is the blueprint for action. It must identify at least five specific locations where the PRC is currently trying to establish a presence. Crucially, for each of those five locations, the government must detail the specific actions that would be most effective in convincing the host country to ditch the PRC deal. This moves the U.S. from simply reacting to actively offering alternatives to partner nations.

The Interagency Task Force: Making It Stick

To ensure this strategy doesn't just sit on a shelf, the bill mandates the creation of a special interagency task force within 90 days of the strategy being submitted. This task force, led by State and Defense, will be responsible for two things: putting the counter-strategy into action at the five identified hot spots and finding ways to stop the PRC from establishing bases in other, less obvious locations (Sec. 5). This is a big deal because it forces coordination across agencies—a "whole-of-government" approach—something Congress explicitly calls for in Section 3.

This task force is essentially the permanent team dedicated to this issue. The strategy and its implementation will then be reviewed and updated every four years, ensuring the government’s approach remains current as the PRC’s global ambitions evolve.

The Fine Print: What the Government Must Consider

While this bill is a clear directive to prioritize national security and push back against the PRC, Section 3, the "Sense of Congress," touches on some key strategic points. It pushes the government to consider how commercial deals or scientific cooperation might be used as a cover for the PLA to gain access. It also stresses the need to fully integrate allies into the effort, recognizing that many allies have better relationships and influence in the regions the PRC is targeting.

For the agencies involved, the bill requires them to list all resources—money and staff—currently dedicated to this issue and point out any shortcomings. This is a subtle but important provision that forces accountability and justifies future budget requests aimed at countering this specific foreign policy challenge.