Is there political activity in the US for regulation or banning of potentially biologically active samples from space to Earth? Who is doing so?

Question

These comments (1, 2) under @SpaceLawyer's answer to If Elon Musk wanted to bring back some Martian soil, would US permission be required? in Space Exploration SE say:

Let's not feel quickly relieved by the "details" of the planetary protection process described above. Here is a good complementary read Planetary Protection in the Space Era: Science and Governance. Extract:"As COSPAR is an independent organization without any legal mandate, the Planetary Protection Policy is an example of so-called “soft law” or a non-binding international instrument, in short, no one is under any legal obligation to comply with them".

and

Another good read How SCIENTISTS prevent Earth's microbes from contaminating other planets. Extract:"Attempts in the US Congress to potentially exempt private actors from planetary protection requirements have already happened, as part of a bill in 2018 to reduce the “regulatory burden” on the commercial space industry. The efforts failed, but those who supported it may try again."

Related in Space SE: What precautions are planned to prevent samples returned from Mars crashing and releasing organisms on Earth? which shows that "stuff happens".

above: Genesis crash site scenery

The Genesis sample return capsule on the ground in Utah. The impact occurred near Granite Peak on a remote portion of the Utah Test and Training Range. No people or structures were anywhere near the area.

Question: Is there political activity in the US for regulation or banning of potentially biologically active samples from space to Earth? Who is doing so? Is there pending legislation? Are there any political actors who are blocking this?

Answer 1

So, first off, the existing law about space isn't something that the U.S. has unilateral jurisdiction over, having been placed into a quasi "international waters" classification by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Private exploitation of space objects is precluded by Article I thereof, which holds that any resource exploitation or study of any space object must be "for the good of all mankind," which private, for-profit entities are basically automatically disqualified for unless acting under contract to another actor - i.e. a signatory State.

Article IX covers the possibility of contamination, and any State (global sense, not - e.g. - Massachusetts), may raise objections and insist on being allowed to consult on the proposed mission. But it requires that the signatory nation (presumably through their department of state) raises the objection to the operation.

For Space X, or Elon Musk, to act unilaterally in space as a U.S. Citizen, without authorization of the U.S. Government, they probably run the risk of violating the Hatch Act which (among other things) makes it illegal for a U.S. citizen to act like they have diplomatic authority to confer with other nations. The Outer Space Treaty also requires signatory governments to directly monitor the actions of private companies in space - so the legal authority for Space X or Elon Musk to unilaterally perform a sample return mission is in doubt.

Obviously there's nothing physically stopping someone from triggering judicial review of all this, but until the threat of such is a lot nearer, this isn't an area that sees much of the kind of activity being asked about, because a credible threat of this happening has yet to materialize. Serious political actions are almost always reactionary in nature - so this answer may change once there's been a credible threat that Musk might even be capable of such.