DETERRENT Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 3, 2025
Bottom line
This bill dramatically increases transparency and imposes strict prohibitions on foreign engagement for U.S. higher education institutions, aiming to counter foreign influence and protect national security.
What it actually does
The DETERRENT Act significantly amends Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, strengthening disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts to institutions of higher education and their faculty/staff. It prohibits contracts with foreign countries and entities of concern, establishing a waiver process for exceptions. The bill also mandates new institutional policies, creates a public database for disclosures, and imposes substantial penalties, including fines and potential ineligibility for federal student aid programs, for non-compliance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for safeguarding national security, protecting American intellectual property, and preventing adversarial foreign governments from exploiting U.S. academic institutions. They contend that increased transparency will expose undue foreign influence and ensure that international collaborations align with U.S. interests, thereby preserving the integrity of higher education and research.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill imposes an excessive administrative and financial burden on institutions, potentially stifling legitimate international research collaboration and academic freedom. They might also raise concerns that the broad definitions of 'foreign entity of concern' and 'contract' could lead to over-reporting or a chilling effect on beneficial global engagement, making U.S. institutions less competitive internationally.
The bill is detailed and requires careful reading to understand the new definitions, reporting thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Section 2(a), amending HEA Section 117(a)-(f)
Strengthened Foreign Gift and Contract Disclosure Requirements
This provision significantly expands and clarifies the types of foreign gifts and contracts that institutions of higher education must report to the Department of Education. It lowers the reporting threshold for gifts and contracts from non-concern foreign sources to $50,000 (or indeterminate value) and requires reporting of any gift or contract from a 'foreign country of concern' or 'foreign entity of concern,' regardless of value. Institutions must provide detailed information, including the purpose, restrictions, fair market value, and unredacted copies of contracts with concern entities. It also mandates annual disclosure for institutions substantially controlled by a foreign source.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these enhanced disclosure requirements are crucial for identifying and mitigating foreign influence operations and intellectual property theft within U.S. higher education. They believe that comprehensive data will allow federal agencies to better assess national security risks and protect academic integrity.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the expanded requirements, particularly the detailed nature of disclosures and the lowered thresholds, will create an undue administrative burden on institutions, potentially leading to over-reporting and a chilling effect on legitimate international academic and research collaborations.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for national security and transparency with concerns about administrative burden and the potential impact on international academic engagement. It seeks to close perceived loopholes in existing law while attempting to define the scope of reportable activities.
Section 2(b), inserting HEA Section 117A
Prohibition on Contracts with Foreign Countries and Entities of Concern
This section directly prohibits institutions of higher education from entering into contracts with any 'foreign country of concern' or 'foreign entity of concern.' It establishes a waiver process, allowing for one-year waivers if the Secretary of Education, in consultation with multiple federal agencies, determines the contract benefits the institution's mission and students, and promotes U.S. security, stability, and economic vitality. Institutions with existing contracts that later become 'of concern' must terminate them within 60 days, with a temporary waiver period for pre-enactment contracts.
Section 3, inserting HEA Section 117B
Faculty and Staff Disclosure Policy and Espionage Risk Management
This section requires institutions receiving significant federal research funds or Title VI funds to establish a policy mandating that 'covered individuals' (faculty and staff involved in research) disclose foreign gifts (above minimal value) and contracts (above $5,000, or any value for concern entities) to the institution annually. Institutions must maintain a publicly searchable database of this information (with privacy protections for natural persons not contracting with concern entities) and develop an effective plan to identify and manage potential espionage risks targeting covered individuals from foreign sources.
Section 4(a), inserting HEA Section 117C(a)
Enhanced Enforcement and Penalties for Non-Compliance
This section grants the Secretary of Education (through the General Counsel) authority to investigate violations of the new disclosure and prohibition requirements. If an institution knowingly or willfully fails to comply, the Attorney General will bring a civil action to compel compliance. Institutions found in violation must pay the full costs of obtaining compliance and face substantial fines. Fines escalate significantly for subsequent violations and can lead to a prohibition from obtaining waivers for contracts with foreign countries/entities of concern.
Section 4(b), amending HEA Section 487(a)
Ineligibility for Federal Student Aid Programs for Repeated Violations
This provision adds a new condition to an institution's program participation agreement for federal student aid. If an institution is found in violation in three separate civil actions and is also prohibited from obtaining waivers for contracts with foreign countries/entities of concern, it will become ineligible to participate in federal student aid programs for a period of not less than two institutional fiscal years. To regain eligibility, the institution must demonstrate compliance for at least two subsequent fiscal years.
The definitions of 'foreign country of concern' and 'foreign entity of concern' are crucial for determining the scope of prohibitions and heightened disclosure. 'Foreign country of concern' includes 'any covered nation defined in section 4872 of title 10, United States Code' and any country the Secretary (in consultation with Defense, State, DNI) determines to be detrimental to U.S. national security or foreign policy. 'Foreign entity of concern' references section 10612(a) of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19221(a)) and the list published under section 1286(c)(9)(A) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (10 U.S.C. 4001 note).
Section 117C(d) (Definitions)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms by reference to existing law to avoid redundancy and to allow for dynamic lists or definitions maintained by other agencies. The discretionary power allows for flexibility in responding to evolving threats without requiring new legislation.
Case for: Supporters argue that using existing definitions and allowing for dynamic designations ensures that the bill's prohibitions remain relevant and adaptable to changing national security landscapes, leveraging expertise from across the federal government.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external, potentially changing definitions and discretionary designations creates uncertainty for institutions, making it difficult to proactively ensure compliance without constant monitoring of multiple federal lists and pronouncements. It could also be seen as granting broad, potentially unchecked, power to the executive branch.
Estimated impact: These definitions directly determine which foreign governments and entities are subject to outright prohibitions on contracts and heightened disclosure requirements, thereby shaping the entire landscape of international engagement for U.S. higher education institutions.
The definitions of 'contract' and 'gift' include specific exclusions that are critical for understanding the scope of reportable activities. Excluded from 'contract' are agreements for student cost of attendance for fewer than 15 students (unless restricted/conditional), arms-length acquisitions from non-concern foreign sources, and certain IP licenses not on the Commerce Control List. Excluded from 'gift' are payments for student cost of attendance/scholarships from natural persons (for <15 students, not under restricted contract), certain IP licenses, and decorations.
Section 117(f)(3)(B) and 117(f)(5)(B) (Definitions of 'Contract' and 'Gift')
Why it matters:These are standard legislative techniques to precisely delineate the scope of a term, ensuring that routine or low-risk activities are not inadvertently captured by the new regulations. They are intended to prevent over-reporting and undue administrative burden for benign interactions.
Case for: Proponents argue that these exclusions are necessary to prevent the bill from capturing and burdening institutions with reporting on common, low-risk academic activities, such as individual student scholarships or routine purchases, thereby allowing the focus to remain on higher-risk engagements.
Case against: Critics might argue that while intended to reduce burden, the complexity of these exclusions could still lead to confusion or, conversely, create unintended loopholes if not interpreted and applied rigorously. The 'less than 15 students' threshold, for example, could be seen as arbitrary.
Estimated impact: These exclusions significantly reduce the administrative burden on institutions by exempting a large volume of common, low-value, or low-risk transactions from the new disclosure requirements, allowing institutions to focus compliance efforts on more substantial engagements.