Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The bill requires the Department of State to collect advance notifications (at least 96 hours) from foreign missions and visiting officials of specified "covered countries" before meetings with U.S. State or local officials or visits to U.S. educational or research institutions. Notifications must include date, location, participants, and purpose; the State Department must report monthly to congressional committees and provide an initial historical report.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and academic freedom risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a mostly well-specified administrative/operational measure that establishes clear notification content, timelines, responsible agencies, reporting cadence, and a sunset.
The bill requires the Department of State to collect advance notifications (at least 96 hours) from foreign missions and visiting officials of specified "covered countries" before meetings with U.S. State or local officials or visits to U.S. educational or research institutions.
Notifications must include date, location, participants, and purpose; the State Department must report monthly to congressional committees and provide an initial historical report.
A multi-agency threat assessment and policy recommendations regarding U.S. diplomats in those countries are due 4.5 years after enactment; the reporting and notification requirements sunset after five years.
Modest likelihood: administratively focused and time‑limited, but implicates diplomacy and could draw procedural hurdles and stakeholder opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a mostly well-specified administrative/operational measure that establishes clear notification content, timelines, responsible agencies, reporting cadence, and a sunset. It also contains a substantive interagency reporting element (threat assessment), which aligns with the secondary reporting/study function.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and academic freedom risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and academic freedom risks
Generally supportive of transparency and protections against foreign authoritarian influence on local governments and campuses, but wary of overbroad surveillance targeting students or diasporic communities.
Concerned about preserving academic freedom, civil liberties, and non-discriminatory application of rules.
Supportive of increased transparency and counterintelligence safeguards, while cautious about administrative burden and diplomatic fallout.
Wants clear definitions, cost estimates, and measured implementation to avoid unintended consequences.
Favorably views the bill as a necessary step to counter malign influence from authoritarian states and protect local governments and research institutions.
Would prefer stronger enforcement and possibly broader measures, but supports its focus and sunset provision.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest likelihood: administratively focused and time‑limited, but implicates diplomacy and could draw procedural hurdles and stakeholder opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and academic freedom risks
Modest likelihood: administratively focused and time‑limited, but implicates diplomacy and could draw procedural hurdles and stakeholder op…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a mostly well-specified administrative/operational measure that establishes clear notification content, timelines, responsible agencies, reporting cadence, and a s…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.