A bill to amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act to require each institution of higher education to certify as part of an application for a research and development award that such institution does not operate certain branch campuses, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to restrict federal research funding to U.S. higher education institutions that maintain branch campuses in countries identified as national security concerns, aiming to safeguard American research and intellectual property.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act to mandate that federal research agencies require institutions of higher education (IHEs) to certify they do not operate branch campuses in specific countries, including China, Russia, Iran, and others deemed by the Secretary of State, when applying for federal R&D awards. The certification aims to enhance research security by limiting federal funding to institutions with ties to countries identified as potential national security risks.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step to protect U.S. national security and intellectual property by preventing federal research funds from indirectly supporting or being compromised by adversarial foreign governments. They contend that operating branch campuses in these countries creates vulnerabilities for espionage, technology transfer, and undue foreign influence, making it essential to ensure that institutions receiving federal R&D awards are not simultaneously engaged in activities that could undermine U.S. interests.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such a blanket restriction could harm academic freedom, limit global collaboration, and potentially disadvantage U.S. institutions that have legitimate educational or research partnerships in some of the listed countries. They may also contend that the bill could lead to a "brain drain" if researchers or institutions are forced to choose between international engagement and federal funding, potentially weakening America's overall scientific competitiveness rather than strengthening it.
The bill is very short and clearly written, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 10634A(a) into 42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.
Certification Requirement for Federal Research Awards
This provision mandates that within two years of the bill's enactment, federal agencies awarding research and development grants must require applicant institutions of higher education to certify that they do not operate branch campuses in a list of specified countries. These countries include Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, Turkey, Russia, and Qatar, with the Secretary of State having the authority to add more.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses national security concerns by severing financial ties between federal research funding and institutions operating in countries deemed adversarial or high-risk. This protects sensitive research, intellectual property, and prevents potential exploitation of academic partnerships by foreign governments.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could force U.S. institutions to withdraw from valuable international educational and research collaborations, potentially isolating American academia and reducing its global influence. They may also contend that it could disproportionately affect institutions with long-standing, legitimate programs in some of these countries, leading to a loss of cultural exchange and soft power.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances national security interests and the protection of intellectual property against the potential for reduced international academic engagement and collaboration. It creates a tension between safeguarding domestic research and maintaining a global presence for U.S. higher education.
Grants the Secretary of State the authority to unilaterally add any other country to the list of prohibited locations for branch campuses, beyond the eight specifically named.
Section 10634A(a)(9)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to provide flexibility to executive agencies in adapting to evolving geopolitical circumstances without requiring new legislation for each change.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is essential for national security, allowing the government to respond swiftly to emerging threats or changes in international relations without legislative delays.
Case against: Critics might argue that this grants significant power to the executive branch, potentially leading to arbitrary additions to the list without sufficient congressional oversight or public debate, which could impact academic institutions unexpectedly.
Estimated impact: Potentially broad impact on academic institutions' international operations, depending on future determinations by the Secretary of State, introducing an element of unpredictability.