HB4902 would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of higher education from receiving gifts from or entering into contracts with foreign countries of concern. It adds a new definition of foreign country of concern, to be determined by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence, and it amends the act to create a hard prohibition on gifts and contracts with those countries.
The act also preserves the payment of tuition, room and board, fees, or other costs of attendance from being affected. The change shifts the governance of campus funding away from certain foreign influences and creates a clear threshold for what counts as a risk to national security in campus funding and partnerships.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Section 117A to prohibit gifts from foreign countries of concern and to prohibit institutions from entering into contracts with those countries. It also modifies disclosures of foreign gifts by excluding foreign countries of concern from the covered definitions.
Who It Affects
Institutions of higher education, their development and procurement offices, and any partner organizations that would previously have engaged in gifts or contracts with foreign governments.
Why It Matters
It creates a defined national-security filter for campus funding and partnerships, aiming to reduce foreign influence on research and resources while setting a clear compliance standard for universities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Securing Academia from Foreign Entanglements Act tightens funding and collaboration rules for colleges and universities. It adds a new provision, Section 117A, that defines what counts as a foreign country of concern and prohibits any institution from receiving gifts or entering into contracts with those countries.
This definition includes nations already designated as covered nations by national-security authorities and any country the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence determine poses a national-security or foreign-policy risk. The bill also amends existing gift-disclosure rules to treat these countries as outside the scope of usual disclosures when appropriate, and it preserves the normal flow of tuition and other attendance costs, so existing student costs are not affected.
In short, universities would be required to screen and avoid gifts or agreements with risk-designated states, aligning campus funding with national-security priorities. The measure is framed as a guardrail rather than a broader ban on all international engagement, highlighting the ongoing tension between safeguarding security and maintaining international academic collaboration.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 117A to prohibit gifts from, and contracts with, foreign countries of concern at higher education institutions.
A foreign country of concern includes both a 'covered nation' and any country the Secretary of Defense, State, and DNI determine to threaten US security or policy interests.
Section 117A provides definitions for 'contract,' 'gift,' and 'institution' aligned with existing law (Section 117).
The Rule of Construction says tuition, room and board, fees, and other costs of attendance are not affected by these prohibitions.
The proposal amends Section 117(h)(2)(A) to exclude foreign countries of concern from the standards for foreign gifts disclosures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the Securing Academia from Foreign Entanglements Act, establishing the named policy goal and jurisdictional scope for the amendments that follow.
Disclosures of foreign gifts (amendment to 117(h)(2)(A))
Adds a clarifying rider to the HEA disclosures, stating that a foreign country of concern is excluded from certain gift-disclosure terms. This sets up the definitional boundary that feeds into the prohibition established in Section 117A.
Prohibition on gifts and contracts with foreign countries of concern
Implements the core restriction: institutions may not receive gifts from or contract with a foreign country of concern. The section also defines the scope of 'foreign country of concern' and ties it to other HEA definitions used elsewhere in the statute.
Rule of construction
Affirms that the new prohibitions do not alter the treatment of tuition, room and board, fees, or other aspects of attendance, ensuring that basic student costs remain unaffected despite tighter restrictions on external funding.
Prohibition on gifts from foreign countries of concern—definitions and obligations
Creates the new definitional framework for what counts as a foreign country of concern and outlines the obligations of institutions under the prohibition. It specifies how terms like 'contract' and 'gift' are to be interpreted under existing statute and clarifies the relationships to national-security determinations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- University compliance offices gain clearer, concrete rules for due diligence and risk management.
- U.S. higher education leadership and trustees seeking to minimize governance risk from foreign influence.
- National security agencies (DoD, State, DNI) benefit from a more predictable protection against overseas pressure in campus funding and partnerships.
Who Bears the Cost
- Universities with current or planned gifts or contracts from countries now designated as concerns may lose funding sources.
- Compliance offices face increased due diligence and monitoring costs to ensure ongoing compliance.
- Academics and departments reliant on international collaborations or foreign-sourced funding may experience disruption to research programs and partnerships.
- Fundraising offices must navigate a narrower donor pool and adjust development strategies.
- Contracting offices will need additional screening and contractual safeguards in dealings with foreign entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing national-security protections with the academic and funding realities of higher education. Tightening rules on foreign gifts and contracts reduces exposure to potential influence but risks constraining legitimate international collaboration, research funding, and donor engagement. The policy trades a potentially broad safety net for the risk of hindering beneficial global partnerships and putting U.S. campuses at a competitive disadvantage in global research and innovation.
The act introduces a new gatekeeping mechanism for funding and partnerships by defining ‘foreign country of concern’ and pairing that with an explicit prohibition on gifts and contracts. While this strengthens security and governance, it also risks chilling effects where universities preemptively limit international engagement to avoid inadvertently triggering the rule.
The definitional thresholds—such as which countries are deemed “detrimental” to national security—depend on executive-branch determinations, which could lead to frequent re-designations and shifting compliance requirements. The bill does not specify grandfathering for existing agreements or donations, which could create transitional uncertainty for institutions with multi-year gifts or long-term contracts in place.
It also raises questions about how to handle indirect funding routed through intermediary organizations and whether state-level or private entities would be treated the same as governing public universities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.