Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The bill bars federal agencies from obligating or spending federal funds to award grants or contracts to an institution of higher education when the award is for conducting fundamental research in collaboration with a "covered entity." Covered entities are broadly defined to include certain foreign academic institutions and entities identified in existing Defense/NDAA lists, Chinese institutions tied to military-civil fusion, and individuals or recipients of funding tied to those entities or to foreign "countries of concern." Agency heads may grant case-by-case waivers if they determine a waiver is in the national security interest and the institution meets enrollment-based eligibility thresholds (international enrollment under 15% and students from countries of concern under 5% of the international student body), with persecuted groups excluded from those caps. Agencies must notify Congress within 30 days of any waiver and provide annual reports with details on waiver requests, justifications, participating institutions and covered entities, types of collaboration, and IP terms.
Scope and breadth: Liberals worry the bill is overbroad and harms openness; conservatives emphasize strong national-security protections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that establishes a prohibition on federal funding for specified research collaborations, with detailed definitions, a waiver pathway, and reporting requirements that provide a moderate implementation scaffold.
The bill bars federal agencies from obligating or spending federal funds to award grants or contracts to an institution of higher education when the award is for conducting fundamental research in collaboration with a "covered entity." Covered entities are broadly defined to include certain foreign academic institutions and entities identified in existing Defense/NDAA lists, Chinese institutions tied to military-civil fusion, and individuals or recipients of funding tied to those entities or to foreign "countries of concern." Agency heads may grant case-by-case waivers if they determine a waiver is in the national security interest and the institution meets enrollment-based eligibility thresholds (international enrollment under 15% and students from countries of concern under 5% of the international student body), with persecuted groups excluded from those caps.
Agencies must notify Congress within 30 days of any waiver and provide annual reports with details on waiver requests, justifications, participating institutions and covered entities, types of collaboration, and IP terms.
The bill defines "collaboration" broadly and treats "fundamental research" as defined by NSSD-189.
The bill addresses a politically salient national‑security issue in a direct way and includes compromise features (waivers, reporting), which improves its prospects. However, it would impose new restrictions on the research community, has broad definitional reach that could trigger strong pushback from universities and civil‑liberties advocates, and would likely face significant amendment pressure in the Senate. Because it does not create spending offsets or a popular benefits package, and given implementation and legal risks, the path to enactment is uncertain and would probably require narrowing or negotiation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that establishes a prohibition on federal funding for specified research collaborations, with detailed definitions, a waiver pathway, and reporting requirements that provide a moderate implementation scaffold.
Scope and breadth: Liberals worry the bill is overbroad and harms openness; conservatives emphasize strong national-security protections.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and breadth: Liberals worry the bill is overbroad and harms openness; conservatives emphasize strong national-security protections.
A mainstream liberal would recognize the national security intent of limiting sensitive collaborations with hostile or military-aligned foreign actors, but would be concerned this bill casts too wide a net and could harm academic freedom, open science, and the diversity of U.S. campuses.
They would worry about discriminatory effects on international students and scholars, chilling collaboration even in basic, non-sensitive research, and administrative burdens that could push universities to avoid federally funded research.
They would look for tighter, narrowly targeted language and stronger safeguards for civil liberties and non-discriminatory treatment.
A centrist would generally accept the national security rationale for restricting federally funded collaborations with entities tied to foreign militaries or hostile state programs, and would appreciate the waiver mechanism and reporting requirements.
They would be cautious about blunt thresholds (15% and 5%) and broad definitions that could unintentionally harm research capacity and U.S. competitiveness.
Their view would be that the bill is potentially useful but needs clearer implementation guidance, proportionality, and cost analysis.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as a necessary measure to protect U.S. research and technology from adversarial foreign influence, particularly from actors tied to military-civil fusion or state-directed programs.
They would appreciate the prohibition, the focus on entities already identified in NDAA lists, and congressional oversight via waiver notice and reporting.
Some conservatives might argue the bill is not strict enough (preferring fewer waivers or broader application), but overall would consider it a useful national-security safeguard.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
The bill addresses a politically salient national‑security issue in a direct way and includes compromise features (waivers, reporting), which improves its prospects. However, it would impose new restrictions on the research community, has broad definitional reach that could trigger strong pushback from universities and civil‑liberties advocates, and would likely face significant amendment pressure in the Senate. Because it does not create spending offsets or a popular benefits package, and given implementation and legal risks, the path to enactment is uncertain and would probably require narrowing or negotiation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and breadth: Liberals worry the bill is overbroad and harms openness; conservatives emphasize strong national-security protections.
The bill addresses a politically salient national‑security issue in a direct way and includes compromise features (waivers, reporting), whi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive policy change that establishes a prohibition on federal funding for specified research collaborations, with detailed definitions, a w…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.