Defense Bill Strips Judicial Review from Secretary's Decisions on Foreign Military Companies

The National Defense Supply Chain Integrity Act of 2025 is short, but it packs a serious punch when it comes to who gets to question the Department of Defense (DoD). This bill amends existing law to classify the Secretary of Defense’s decision to identify a company as a “Chinese military company” as a “military or foreign affairs function.” Why does that technical language matter? Because that classification acts like a legal shield, exempting these specific decisions from most of the standard checks and balances required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Legal Shortcut: Less Paperwork, Less Oversight

For those of us who don’t spend our weekends reading federal regulations, the APA is basically the rulebook for how federal agencies make decisions. It ensures transparency, gives the public a voice, and allows courts to review agency actions. This bill, however, carves out some huge exceptions for the Secretary of Defense’s identification process. Specifically, it eliminates the requirement for formal rulemaking (Section 553) and, crucially, removes the possibility of judicial review (Sections 701 through 706).

Think of it this way: when a federal agency wants to create a new rule—say, changing clean air standards or updating student loan forms—they usually have to publish the proposed rule, take comments from the public, and justify their final decision. That’s the rulemaking process this bill skips. More importantly, if someone believes the Secretary of Defense made a mistake—maybe they used flawed data or misinterpreted the law when labeling a company—they can’t take that decision to court for review. The bill leaves the decision subject only to Section 554, which governs adjudication, but the lack of judicial review means the Secretary’s decision essentially becomes final and unchallengeable in court.

Who Feels the Change?

On the one hand, the DoD gets a huge boost in agility. If they need to quickly designate a company as a threat to national security, they can move fast without getting bogged down in public comment periods or the threat of immediate lawsuits. For those who prioritize rapid response in a high-stakes geopolitical environment, this streamlined process is a clear benefit.

However, the cost of that speed is transparency and accountability. When a decision can’t be challenged in court, there’s no external pressure to ensure the evidence is solid or that the process was followed correctly. For the public, this means less insight into how these high-level national security decisions are made. For any company—even those indirectly affected by the designation—they lose the crucial right to argue their case before an independent judge if they feel the designation was arbitrary or factually incorrect. It concentrates significant, unchecked power in the hands of one office, which is exactly what the APA was designed to prevent.

The Bigger Picture: Precedent and Due Process

This isn't just about one specific list of companies; it’s about administrative precedent. When Congress classifies a specific action as a “military or foreign affairs function” to bypass standard oversight, it sets a template. This kind of legal maneuvering could potentially be used in the future to shield other sensitive agency decisions from public scrutiny and judicial review. The core issue here is the balance between national security speed and the fundamental legal principle of due process. While speed might be necessary, eliminating the public’s ability to question the legality of a decision—even a national security one—is a significant shift in how government operates, reducing essential checks on executive power. It’s a trade-off that busy citizens need to understand, because reduced oversight at the top level often trickles down into reduced accountability everywhere elsew across the board.