Republicans are targeting China’s efforts to sidestep U.S. tariffs through foreign production, with new legislation introduced Thursday by House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas.

The Axing Nonmarket Tariff Evasion (ANTE) Act aims to stop subsidized and state-owned entities from setting up production in other countries to avoid tariffs.

“For far too long, adversaries like China have engaged in unfair trade practices, cheated the American economy, and cost the U.S. millions of jobs,” Arrington said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

TRUMP SAYS CHINA AGREES TO ‘FULLY’ OPEN COUNTRY’S MARKETS TO US BUSINESSES

On April 2, which the White House dubbed “Liberation Day,” President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs with the intention of ending trade imbalances. Some of the harshest of the tariffs were imposed on China, which was initially hit with a 145% tariff that was later lowered to 30%. 

While tariffs seem to be discouraging Chinese manufacturers from exporting to the U.S., as evidenced by a recent Commerce Department report showing import levels at their lowest since the COVID-19 pandemic, imports have not stopped entirely.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has found ways to evade the tariffs, such as setting up production in third-party countries or by shipping goods to another country and re-labeling them before sending them to the U.S. By labeling the goods as originating from another country, manufacturers dodge the high tariffs on China and instead get hit with much lower tariffs that are imposed on other nations. This is something that Arrington hopes to stop with his legislation.

Chinese shipping containers are seen at the port of Oakland, as trade tensions continue over U.S. tariffs with China, in Oakland, California, on May 12, 2025. (REUTERS/Carlos Barria)

CHINA ACCUSES US OF ‘TURNING SPACE INTO A WARZONE’ WITH TRUMP’S GOLDEN DOME MISSILE DEFENSE PROJECT

“The ANTE Act will stop highly-subsidized, state-owned businesses from using third countries as backdoors to evade President Trump’s tariffs and help ensure a level playing field for American producers and manufacturers,” Arrington told Fox News Digital.

Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate, is also confident the bill will stop the CCP from falsifying the origins of imports.

“Communist China shouldn’t be able to dodge U.S. tariffs by slapping a ‘Made in Mexico’ label on their products,” Banks said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “My bill closes loopholes and stops the CCP from cheating American workers and manufacturers.” 

The phenomenon of “place-of-origin washing” is not limited to large businesses. Chinese social media platforms are filled with ads offering services to help sellers avoid tariffs, the Financial Times reported. The outlet also noted that South Korea’s customs agency has seen an uptick in cases involving sellers using their country to avoid U.S. tariffs.

The national flags of the United States and China flutter at the Fairmont Peace Hotel on April 25, 2024 in Shanghai. (Photo by Wang Gang/VCG via Getty Images)

Under U.S. law, goods must undergo “substantial transformation” in a country to qualify as originating from there. The transformation must significantly add to the value of the good, according to the International Trade Administration’s (ITA) website. 

As an example, the ITA writes that if ingredients are taken from several countries and turned into baked goods, the country of origin can be listed as where the items were baked, as this constitutes a “substantial transformation.” However, if produce from multiple countries is frozen and mixed in another nation, then the origin of each ingredient must be listed.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer appeared at a civil trial this week and denied claims he retaliated against a former executive and whistleblower who sought to protect female prosecutors who were sexually harassed in the D.A.’s office.

In a lawsuit filed against the county by former senior assistant Dist. Atty. Tracy Miller, at one point the highest-ranking woman in the prosecutors office, Spitzer and others are accused of retaliation and trying to force Miller out of her job after she questioned Spitzer’s actions as D.A. Those actions included his handling of allegations that a male superior, who was also the best man at Spitzer’s wedding, sexually harassed young female prosecutors.

Spitzer denied the accusations during hours of testimony that became at times tense and emotional. In a San Diego courtroom this week, Spitzer acknowledged deep tensions within the D.A.’s office following his 2018 election victory over former Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas.

Spitzer, who appeared to wipe away tears during his testimony, told jurors he believed he was walking “in the lions’ den” after winning the election and expected opposition from employees who had worked for Rackauckas.

“I knew it was going to be miserable, and it was miserable,” Spitzer said, his voice cracking.

In her lawsuit, Miller alleges that Spitzer and former chief assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson — who is now an Orange County Superior Court Judge — forced the prosecutor out through “purposeful and intentional retaliation.” The reason for this, Miller alleges, is that she was protecting female subordinates who had reported sexual misconduct by a male superior, Gary LoGalbo, who is now deceased.

“Miller was punished for refusing to allow Spitzer to lionize the predator, gaslight, and further savage the reputation of the victims,” her lawsuit says.

According to the suit, Miller had also raised concerns about Spitzer’s handling of the D.A.’s office, including worries that Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act by bringing up questions of race while trying to determine whether or not to seek the death penalty against a Black defendant. She also claimed that Spitzer considered a prosecutor’s race in assignments and that he had possibly undermined a homicide case.

But it was the allegations of sexual harassment against LoGalbo, a former friend and roommate of Spitzer’s, that plaintiff attorneys say most threatened Spitzer’s leadership and prompted him to target Miller.

“[Spitzer] knew that if this was believed, the (district attorney’s) office would suffer one of the worst scandals ever,” said John Barnett, an attorney representing Miller during his opening statement Monday. “He punished (Miller) for protecting one of her young prosecutors.”

Attorneys representing the county, as well as Spitzer and Nelson, argue that the men wanted Miller to stay in the prosecutor’s office and valued her experience, pointing out they promoted four women to top positions due to her recommendations.

Defense Attorney Tracey Kennedy argued during her opening statement Monday that even though LoGalbo had been friends with Spitzer years ago, the relationship had changed by the time the allegations were raised.

“(Spitzer) had no reason to protect Mr. LoGalbo at the expense of the Orange County DA’s office, and the expense of his career,” Kennedy said.

Instead, she said, Spitzer and Nelson had set out to make much needed reforms for the office.

“They had a mission to change the D.A.’s office,” she said.

The county investigation substantiated the sexual harassment allegations against LoGalbo, but an April 2021 report found that allegations of retaliation were unsubstantiated because no actions were taken against the employees.

Much of Spitzer’s time on the witness stand Tuesday centered on his role in the LoGalbo investigation, and what appeared to be differing versions of what occurred. At one point during questioning, Spitzer disclosed that the version of events he gave the county’s investigator during the internal probe — about a highly scrutinized private meeting with a supervisor — had been “inaccurate.”

Chris Duff, a former senior deputy district attorney, had told the county investigator that Spitzer met with him in the law library of a Westminster courthouse in January 2021 and instructed him to write up one of the sexual harassment victims in her upcoming evaluation for being “untruthful.” Duff said he refused to do so, according to a report of the internal investigation.

Spitzer initially denied discussing the evaluation during the meeting and told the investigator, Elisabeth Frater, that he “never said that” to Duff because he didn’t want anything “to be perceived in any way whatsoever that we were retaliating against her.”

But in court this week, Spitzer offered a different version of events.

“What I told Frater was inaccurate,” Spitzer said, adding that he did discuss concerns he had about the female prosecutor’s honesty regarding an email she wrote. “I did talk to Duff about that.”

But Spitzer maintained his concerns were about the prosecutor’s veracity, and not about the claims she had raised against LoGalbo.

After Duff met with Spitzer, Miller sent a note to Spitzer telling the district attorney she was aware of the conversation, and arguing against writing up the female prosecutor.

During his testimony, Spitzer said that he was disappointed with Miller, and that she had not gone directly to him with her concerns about various issues.

At one point, Spitzer said, he had grown to wonder why Miller would take notes during executive meetings.

“You could see anytime a subject came up, Tracy was taking notes about our meetings,” Spitzer said. “There was a point of time where it was very curious to me, why do you seem to be memorializing everything we’re doing?”

When he was first elected in 2018, Spitzer said he believed he was walking “in the lions’ den” and expected opposition from his direct reports. For that reason, he said, he chose Shawn Nelson to be his number two.

“I picked him because I was going into battle, in the lions’ den,” Spitzer said.

Miller’s lawsuit is just the latest in a series of troubles that have recently hit the district attorney’s office, including allegations of retaliation raised by top prosecutors and investigators in the office.

The county is also facing eight sexual harassment lawsuits involving allegations against LoGalbo.

In March, a now-retired investigator of the office also sent letters to the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Bar of California, and other agencies to investigate Spitzer and other top officials at the prosecutor’s office.