Bill Overview
Title: Turn OFF THE TAP Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal contracts with or provision of federal funds to designated entities. Designated entities include those subject to specified U.S. sanctions, entities that have a relationship with China's military-industrial complex, and entities that produce communications equipment or services that pose unacceptable risks to U.S. national security.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with sanctioned or security-risk entities
Estimated Size: 500000
- This legislation primarily impacts entities and businesses or organizations that are subject to U.S. sanctions, have connections with China's military-industrial complex, or provide communications equipment or services that pose national security risks.
- Given the nature of the act, the immediate direct impact is on foreign and domestic companies that fall into these categories.
- Secondary impacts may include employees of these entities, industries that rely on these businesses for services and products, and potentially the consumers who utilize these services.
- Government agencies that manage contracts and funding allocations will also need to adjust practices and may experience an impact.
Reasoning
- The primary groups affected by this policy would be those working in entities connected with China's military-industrial complex, sanctioned entities, and global communication firms that could impact American companies with such ties.
- The immediate impact on individuals will likely derive from job changes or losses and shifts in product or service availability and cost.
- As the policy impacts firms that are considered to present a national security risk, one might expect reduced job opportunities in the affected sectors.
- The size of the budget ($100,000,000 in the first year and $835,000,000 over 10 years) implies that the financial reach of the policy includes managing these direct impacts and possibly providing support, adjustments, or changes to impacted entities and persons.
- Considering the scope of entities affected, the policy will mostly influence large corporations and businesses, meaning the individual adverse impacts may be significant for those directly involved but small in proportion to the entire population.
- Secondary effects may include shifts in consumer prices or service availability if key technologies or services are impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Tech Engineer (San Jose, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the stability of my job.
- The company has contracts that might get cut, impacting my role.
- I'm worried about finding similar positions locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Supplier Relations Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Some of our suppliers are getting cut due to the new rules.
- This policy could hurt our supply chain efficiency.
- I understand the security reasons but it's going to make my job a lot more challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Some clients might move operations to other countries which could reduce my job pool.
- This policy could change investment strategies drastically.
- I feel secure at my job right now, but it's a shifting landscape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Government Contractor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not worried for myself, but my team may face reductions.
- We contract with a few companies possibly linked with defense industries of foreign entities.
- Morale is down as this policy raises a lot of uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is necessary but will need close implementation monitoring.
- There might be unintended consequences with regard to relations with allied industries.
- This is a chance to strengthen our internal tech infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Software Developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see tech companies adapting quickly to the changes.
- There might be more opportunities for local startups due to this policy.
- I am optimistic about the long-term outlook for my industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Manufacturing Plant Operator (Detroit, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There could be job cuts if we lose some of our international contracts.
- I understand the reasons but my focus is on stable employment.
- Hard to see how we'll sustain without the overseas business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Business Consultant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unsure how the policy will change client dynamics.
- There might be fewer opportunities overseas for me.
- It's a balancing act, national security is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Student in International Studies (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone studying policy, the implications intrigue me.
- Personally, my startup job may become unstable if partnerships change.
- It's an opportunity to learn directly from real-world policy impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Oil and Gas Operations Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might face reductions in certain contracts but overall, our core operations remain unaffected.
- It highlights the importance of diversifying business partnerships.
- Supports national security enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $95000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $190000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $180000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $150000000)
Year 10: $75000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could drive technological divestment from foreign suppliers deemed risky, leading to increased competitiveness of U.S. firms.
- Cost implications depend on how many entities will be affected and how funds will be reallocated.
- Potential disruptions in supply chains should be anticipated, considering the necessity of finding alternative contractors.