Six Assurances Act

Summary#

S. 3208, the Six Assurances to Taiwan Act, would create a new federal law; it does not amend the Taiwan Relations Act or another existing Act. It would state U.S. policy on the Six Assurances and require congressional review before certain presidential actions. Its stated goal is to codify the assurances and protect Taiwan from coercion; the bill does not guarantee that outcome.

  • The bill restates six assurances as U.S. policy: no agreed end date for defensive arms sales to Taiwan; no agreement to consult China about those sales; no U.S. mediation role; no agreement to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; no U.S. position on Taiwan’s sovereignty; and no pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with China.
  • Before taking specified actions—including pausing or ending defensive arms supplies, negotiating with China about them, mediating over Taiwan’s sovereignty, changing the U.S. position on sovereignty, or pressuring Taiwan to negotiate—the President must notify Congress and explain the proposed action.
  • During a 30-day review period—or 60 days for notices submitted July 10 through September 7—the President and other federal officers may not take the proposed action or spend funds to advance it unless Congress enacts a joint resolution approving it.
  • If Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving the action, the bill bars the action and spending to advance it. If both chambers pass a disapproval resolution but it is not enacted, the bill sets temporary pauses after passage and, if the President vetoes it, after the veto.

What it means for you#

  • President and federal officers: They would have to notify Congress before taking any of the listed actions. The restriction applies to spending appropriated funds to advance them during the review period.
  • Congress: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee are named as the reviewing committees. They “should” hold hearings, briefings, or otherwise gather information; the bill does not make those activities mandatory. Congress could use joint resolutions to approve or disapprove a proposed action.
  • Taiwan and China: The bill states U.S. policy but does not itself require arms sales, create a new military commitment, or guarantee Taiwan’s security. It does not ban negotiations between Taiwan and China.
  • Taxpayers: The bill creates no tax, fee, fine, or direct benefit.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s implementation costs.

  • The bill restricts when federal funds may be spent to advance a covered action during congressional review, but provides no estimate of affected spending or administrative costs.
  • It does not appropriate money or specify new staffing.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “defensive character,” “significantly alter” U.S. foreign policy, or what counts as exerting pressure on Taiwan.
  • It does not explain how the President should handle urgent situations during the review period.
  • The notice must go to congressional “leadership,” but the bill does not define which leaders.
  • The templates for approval and disapproval resolutions refer to a notification under “section 2(a)(1),” although that section does not exist in the bill. The text does not explain the effect of this apparent drafting error.
  • The bill does not explain how its provisions interact with existing laws in practice. Its findings say that other laws already recognize the Six Assurances or related U.S. policy; the text of those laws was not provided for comparison.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make major changes to U.S. policy on Taiwan more visible to Congress before they take effect.
  • A possible argument for the review period is that it gives Congress time to examine the security, economic, and sovereignty effects of a proposed action.
  • Setting out the six assurances in a new law could make the stated policy clearer and harder to change without notice and review.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the review period could delay a covered foreign-policy action, including in circumstances where the executive branch considers speed important.
  • The bill requires an enacted approval resolution to take a covered action during the review period. The broad or undefined terms may make it unclear which proposals trigger that requirement.
  • The bill does not set out a process for resolving disputes over whether an action is covered, or how urgent cases should be handled.
  • The resolution templates’ incorrect section reference could create uncertainty about how Congress should use the review process.