UFLPA Entity List 2026: Every Entity, Clause and Effective Date^*

Search demand for the 2026 list is a demand for one thing: which names are on it right now, and which of them arrived this year. That is a data question, not a narrative one, so this page answers it from the entity list itself rather than from commentary about it. The list we hold is parsed from the DHS table and carries, per entity, the effective date and the statutory clause the listing sits under — both of which decide how a supplier check has to be run.

What the 2026 number actually means^*

Counted per entity, using each entity's EARLIEST effective date, so the column sums to 188 rather than to the 205 listings. Effective dates run 2022-06-21 to 2026-08-03.

Source: DHS UFLPA entity list snapshot, parsed into data/uflpa_entities.json — https://www.dhs.gov/uflpa-entity-list (fetched 2026-10-20).^*

The year counts are first-effective-year counts per entity, not churn. An entity that was listed in 2024 and re-published in a later table is still a 2024 entity, because what binds an entry is the date the listing took effect, not the date the list was re-issued. This matters when an importer says “the list changed this year and my supplier is new on it”: if the supplier's effective date is older, the exposure is older too, and so is the documentary trail you are expected to have kept.

Homeland Security owns the list; CBP enforces it at the border

The list is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security through the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, and the version importers actually meet is the CBP enforcement action that follows: a detention at the port of entry under the rebuttable presumption. That division of labor explains a confusion that shows up in supplier questionnaires. Being on the list is a DHS publication event; being stopped is a CBP entry event. A shipment can be detained on evidence that does not mention the list, and an entity on the list can clear if the importer rebuts the presumption for a specific shipment with a specific traceability file.

Practically, the list is not a sanctions list and does not prohibit importation. It shifts the burden: instead of CBP proving forced labor, the importer must show that the goods were not produced with it — which for Xinjiang-linked supply chains usually means tracing raw material to source, not just holding a supplier declaration.

The three clauses and why they are not interchangeable

Each listing records the clause it sits under. Across the 205 listings that cover the 188 entities, 149 sit under clause (v), 47 under clause (ii) and 9 under clause (i). The clause tells you which statutory hook the listing uses and therefore what kind of rebuttal evidence is asked for: a listing tied to a labor-transfer program is rebutted differently from one tied to a facility or an industrial park. Reading the clause before writing the rebuttal saves a full detention cycle, because a file that answers the wrong clause reads as no answer.

17 entities appear in more than one clause. For those, the clause with the earliest effective date governs the documentary period, and the later clause adds a second hook rather than resetting the clock.

Checking a supplier when names do not match

Name matching is the step where supplier screening fails quietly. Of the 188 entities, 4 carry more than one recorded name variant and 72 carry separate alias entries — 38% of the list. A search on the commercial name alone therefore returns a clean result for a substantial share of listed suppliers, which is why the result cannot be relied on without checking aliases, and why our entity search matches on the alias set rather than the primary name.

First six of the 45 entities first effective in 2026, alphabetically. The full set is in the entity list tool.

Source: DHS UFLPA entity list snapshot, parsed into data/uflpa_entities.json — https://www.dhs.gov/uflpa-entity-list (fetched 2026-10-20).^*

Run the check in the UFLPA entity search tool, which matches on names and aliases against the same snapshot this page is built from. For the directory view of all 188 entities with per-entity pages, use the entity list browser. When a supplier does match, the compliance path — what CBP asks for and in what order — is set out in the WRO compliance checklist, and the enforcement statistics behind the detention volumes are in the detention statistics guide.

How the list sits beside the other UFLPA enforcement surfaces

The entity list is one of three shapes UFLPA enforcement takes, and they are not interchangeable. A Withhold Release Order targets a producer or a commodity at the border and can be issued without a published list; a finding makes that withhold release order permanent; the entity list names the companies whose goods carry the rebuttable presumption wherever they are made. A supplier screening program that only checks the entity list therefore covers the most visible surface and misses the other two — which is exactly the gap that shows up when a shipment is detained for a reason that never appears on the list.

The practical consequence for a sourcing decision is asymmetric. Screening against the list is a lookup that can be automated and repeated on every purchase order; screening against withhold release orders and findings is a lookup against a smaller, narrower set that changes on its own schedule. Run both before the order is placed, and keep the artefacts: a dated supplier check against a dated snapshot is what a compliance file needs, because a check performed today says nothing about the state of the list when the goods were produced.

One more field worth reading from the dataset rather than from commentary: the effective date. Every entity in our snapshot carries one, and the distribution across years (2022 through 2026) shows how the list was built up in waves rather than continuously. A supplier that appears mid-wave usually appears with others from the same industrial cluster, which is a useful signal when you are deciding how deep into a supply chain to look.

What to do with a match, in order

Stop the purchase order before stopping the shipment. A match found at purchase-order stage costs a supplier conversation; the same match found at the port costs a detention, demurrage and a disclosure decision. Then establish which clause applies and what the effective date was, because the documentary window starts there. Then collect the traceability chain — production records, raw-material invoices, transport documents — for the specific shipment, not for the supplier in general. Finally, if the goods are already in transit, prepare the rebuttal package before arrival: a rebuttal assembled after detention starts competes with demurrage accruing daily, and the decision window is short.