What is the UFLPA Entity List? (186 entities as of August 2026)

186, as of the DHS update effective August 3, 2026. DHS publishes the list as several section tables rather than one roll, and a company can sit in more than one section, so the row count overstates the list: the three tables hold 205 rows, and 18 entities appear in two of them. Counted once each, the list is 186 entities. Some third-party pages state 187, which is what adding the July 2026 batch of 43 to the previous total gives before removing the overlap.

DHS does not print a total on the page, so any figure quoted for the list is someone's count. The one here was made from the DHS tables directly, and it matches the independently maintained OpenSanctions dataset of the same list. The list grows a few times a year; the date beside the number is part of the number.

The UFLPA Entity List is maintained by the U.S. government under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. It names companies connected to forced labor involving the Xinjiang region: those mining, producing, or manufacturing goods there with forced labor; those working with the regional government to move members of persecuted groups into labor; exporters of those goods into the United States; and facilities that source material from the region.

Goods made wholly or in part by a listed entity fall under the UFLPA's rebuttable presumption: CBP presumes they are made with forced labor and prohibits entry under U.S. law, unless the importer demonstrates otherwise. The list is not static — the government adds companies to it over time.

Because the presumption applies at the border and the burden of rebutting it falls on the importer, the practical time to check a supplier against the list is before production and payment — not after a shipment is detained.

Four steps, in this order. First, get the supplier's exact legal name, not the trading name on the quote: the registered name in English and, for a Chinese company, in Chinese characters, plus any former names and the parent company. DHS lists entities under their registered names and notes former names in the entry, so a check run against a nickname can miss a listed company.

Second, screen that name, its aliases, and its parent against the current DHS list. The list is published in sections, an entity can appear in more than one, and it grows a few times a year, so the check is only as current as the version it runs against, and the date behind a result is part of what the result means.

Third, do not stop at one list. A supplier can be caught by a Withhold Release Order without appearing on the Entity List, and federal sanctions lists can reach the same company, so screening all three together gives a fuller picture than the Entity List alone.

Fourth, keep the record: which names were checked, against which version of which list, on what date. A no-match result means "nothing found on this list, on this date," and that dated record is what stands behind it if a shipment is later questioned. Doing all of this before production and payment, rather than after a shipment is stopped, is the whole point.

A supplier not appearing on the Entity List does not clear the goods. The presumption reaches goods made wholly or in part by a listed entity, so risk can enter through raw materials and sub-suppliers upstream of the company you deal with directly — the inputs behind the product, not only the name on the invoice. Treat a no-match result as "nothing found on this list, on this date," not as proof the supply chain is clean.

That is why screening is one part of due diligence rather than the whole of it. Mapping where inputs originate, and keeping a dated record of what was checked against which list, is what stands behind a no-match result if a shipment is later questioned.