The Securing Academia from Foreign Entanglements Act amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to bar institutions of higher education from receiving gifts from or entering into contracts with foreign countries of concern. It creates a formal definition of “foreign country of concern” and adds a new provision, Section 117A, to govern gifts and contracts.
It also revises the existing disclosure framework so that gifts from foreign countries of concern are treated distinctly under the act. The bill does not alter tuition-related payments or other cost-of-attendance matters.
These changes collectively aim to tighten oversight over financial relationships between universities and foreign governments deemed threats to national security or foreign policy.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits institutions from receiving gifts or entering contracts with foreign countries of concern. It defines the term and sets out how it applies, including a new prohibition under Section 117A and adjustments to gift disclosures.
Who It Affects
Higher education institutions, their research offices, and procurement/contracts teams, along with foster, funders, and oversight bodies involved in foreign-sourced gifts and collaborations.
Why It Matters
The designation of foreign countries of concern and the accompanying prohibition is designed to reduce potential foreign influence or leverage in academia, and to improve national security and research integrity through clearer policy and governance.
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 the rules governing gifts and contracts between universities and foreign governments. It adds a new category, foreign country of concern, which includes nations already designated as security concerns and others the Secretary determines in consultation with the Defense, State, and Intelligence sectors.
Institutions would be barred from accepting gifts from such countries or entering into contracts with them. The bill also updates gift disclosure provisions to ensure that transactions with foreign countries of concern are treated as part of a special category under the Higher Education Act.
At the same time, it clarifies that normal student financial support — tuition, room and board, fees, and other costs — is not affected by these prohibitions. Together, these changes create a clearer, stricter framework for managing external funding and partnerships in higher education, with national security considerations front and center.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits gifts from foreign countries of concern to institutions of higher education.
It creates Section 117A, defining foreign country of concern and detailing the prohibition.
It amends 117(h)(2)(A) to exclude foreign countries of concern from certain disclosure terms.
The prohibition does not apply to tuition, room and board, or other cost-of-attendance payments.
The Secretary, with input from Defense, State, and the DNI, can designate additional foreign countries of concern for the purposes of the act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disclosures and prohibition mechanism for gifts from foreign countries of concern
Section 2 expands the higher education gift/disclosure framework. It adds a new definition that excludes foreign countries of concern from the existing scope of ‘agency of a foreign government’ when disclosures are considered, and it establishes a new statutory path (117A) to prohibit gifts and contracts from such countries. It also preserves the integrity of tuition-related spending by clarifying that cost-of-attendance payments remain unaffected. This creates a two-layer approach: tighten disclosures on gifts while imposing a direct prohibition on transactions with high-risk foreign actors.
Prohibition on gifts from foreign countries of concern; definitions
This section defines key terms—‘gift,’ ‘contract,’ and ‘foreign country of concern’—and sets out the general rule: institutions shall not receive gifts from or contract with a foreign country of concern. It defines ‘foreign country of concern’ to include (A) countries that are covered nations under 10 U.S.C. 4872(d) and (B) any country the Secretary designates in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence for conduct detrimental to national security or U.S. foreign policy. The term ‘institution’ follows the HEA’s definition. The section also clarifies the relationship to existing HEA provisions and confirms the carve-out for tuition and related costs.
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 and general counsel receive clearer rules and reduced risk of noncompliance.
- Research-intensive universities with international partnerships benefit from clearer boundaries and risk management.
- Federal grant administrators and funding agencies gain clearer oversight to ensure funds are not diverted to foreign influence.
- National security and foreign policy agencies gain better control over risks associated with foreign funding and partnerships.
- Higher education associations and public universities benefit from standardized expectations and governance practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Universities will incur compliance costs to implement due-diligence processes, adjust gift/contract vetting, and update policies.
- Funding for universities’ compliance programs, including legal and procurement teams, may need expansion to monitor foreign donors and partners.
- Some foreign donors or partners previously involved with universities may be excluded from potential collaborations or gifts, impacting negotiated arrangements.
- Universities may face increased administrative burdens and potential renegotiation of existing contracts with foreign entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing national security with academic collaboration: the more expansive the designation of foreign countries of concern, the greater the risk of chilling legitimate research partnerships; conversely, narrowing the designation could leave gaps in safeguarding against foreign influence.
The bill targets a delicate balance between security and academic freedom. While it creates a clear prohibition against gifts and contracts from foreign countries of concern, the designation process—especially the Secretary’s ability to add new countries in consultation with DoD, State, and DNI—could broaden what counts as a concern and introduce uncertainty for institutions evaluating potential collaborations.
The carve-out for tuition and other cost-of-attendance matters is important to prevent disruption to student access, but the absence of penalties or enforcement mechanisms in the text leaves enforcement and compliance questions open. Implementation will hinge on how “foreign country of concern” is operationalized across institutions and how designation decisions are communicated and updated over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.