The white paper describes the policy as putting “workers and small businesses first, ahead of corporate special interests.” It aims to “fundamentally transform” American trade policies to “combat those countries that try to cheat on trade,” singling out both China and Russia.

The plan would greatly increase federal scrutiny of foreign trade and investment by American corporations. Perhaps most significantly, it proposes the creation of an American Jobs Security Council, which would review any potential purchase of an American company by a foreign entity, and would have the authority to stop the deal if it determined that it would have a detrimental economic impact, such as the loss of American jobs.

Also notable is the plan’s contention that the U.S. Trade Representative and the World Trade Organization are ineffective at combatting trade cheating. In response, it proposes the appointment of an Independent Trade Prosecutor, which would evaluate possible trade violations, and impose retaliations without authorization from the WTO.

Other proposals include renegotiating NAFTA to require stronger, enforceable labor standards to drive up global wages and increase market access for American exports, as well as tax policies that would punish outsourcing. In the government contracting space, it proposes requiring government projects only hire U.S. companies using U.S. labor, and requiring federal agencies to consider a company’s record of outsourcing jobs when awarding government contracts.

The platform is seen as a move to recapture some of the voters who were swayed by Trump’s anti-globalization platform in 2016. Overall, it presents a message that is far more populist and protectionist than has been voiced by Democratic candidates and lawmakers in the recent past. Whether the shift succeeds at recapturing votes in the 2018 midterm elections remains to be seen.

Several experts have cautioned that the Senator’s ask exceeds the review authority of CFIUS, which reviews transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the President would be willing to stretch the limits of CFIUS for broader foreign policy objectives, such as pressing China to get tougher on North Korea. While Trump may be open to considering an aggressive interpretation of Committee authority – particularly to achieve a desired outcome – the calculation may change under circumstances where the suggestion comes from a leader across the aisle, not to mention an evaluation of the scope of the Committee’s authority. At this point, it is not clear that CFIUS’s approach to Chinese company acquisitions of U.S. businesses will change.

The legislation would make several big changes. First, the package would codify existing sanctions on Russia, which were imposed in the wake of the invasion of Crimea, into law. Codifying the sanctions would prevent the White House from unilaterally easing or lifting the sanctions, which the administration could do under current law without obtaining approval from Congress.

Second, the new legislation, if enacted into law, would require tough new sanctions on a variety of Russian actors, including those involved in corruption, evading sanctions, doing business with Russia’s defense or intelligence sectors, or cyber operations on behalf of the Russian government, among others. The bill would also authorize more sweeping economic sanctions against Russia’s economy, targeting state-owned mining, metals, shipping, and railroad industries. Implementing the broader economic sanctions would require action by the administration, so it is unclear whether they would ultimately be imposed.

Overall, the bill is an effort to assert more Congressional control over the United States relationship with Russia. The Senate bill does provide the President with discretion over certain aspects of the sanctions, but would mandate Congressional review if the White House tried to suspend or relax sanctions on Russia. In a Congressional hearing the day before the bill’s passage, Secretary of State Tillerson urged Congress “to ensure any legislation allows the president to have the flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.”

The Russia sanctions, developed by a bipartisan group of Senators, were added to an Iran sanctions bill. The bill now goes to the House, where the timing and prospects for passage remain uncertain. If approved by the House, the bill would be sent to the President for signature.