A bill to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to prohibit certain institutions of higher education from receiving research and development awards, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to safeguard U.S. national security research by restricting federal funding to universities that engage in sensitive research with adversarial foreign governments or their affiliated entities.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits institutions of higher education from receiving federal research and development awards for a period of five years if they accept funds from certain "foreign sources" to conduct research related to national security or military applications, specifically including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, or quantum information science. It defines "foreign sources" to include governments of specified countries and entities controlled by or acting on behalf of those governments.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for protecting American intellectual property and national security interests from foreign adversaries who seek to exploit U.S. academic research for military or strategic advantage. They contend that universities receiving federal R&D funds should not simultaneously engage in sensitive research with governments identified as posing national security risks, particularly in critical technology areas like AI and biotechnology.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such broad prohibitions could stifle academic freedom, limit international scientific collaboration, and potentially disadvantage U.S. universities by cutting off legitimate funding sources for non-sensitive research. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden of compliance and the potential for unintended consequences on research diversity and global scientific leadership.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation.
Section 1, amending Subtitle B of title II of division A of Public Law 116-283 by inserting new Section 223A.
Prohibition on Research and Development Awards for Certain Institutions of Higher Education
This provision establishes a five-year ban on federal research and development awards for any U.S. institution of higher education that accepts funding from a "foreign source" for "specified tasks." These specified tasks include research and development related to national security or military applications, particularly in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum information science. The "foreign sources" are explicitly defined to include governments of countries like China, Russia, Iran, and others, as well as entities they control or that act on their behalf.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the threat of foreign adversaries acquiring sensitive U.S. research and technology through academic partnerships, thereby protecting national security and maintaining America's technological edge. They believe it creates a clear incentive for universities to prioritize U.S. interests.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could lead to a chilling effect on legitimate international academic collaboration, potentially isolating U.S. researchers and slowing scientific progress. They may also argue that it places an undue burden on universities to vet all foreign funding sources and could inadvertently penalize institutions for non-sensitive collaborations.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the imperative of national security against the principles of academic freedom and open scientific exchange. It seeks to prevent technology transfer to adversaries while risking potential reductions in global research collaboration and funding diversity for U.S. institutions.
The bill defines "foreign source" broadly to include not only specified foreign governments but also entities established under their laws, entities with 25% ownership by such governments, and any agents thereof, including subsidiaries, foundations, or educational/cultural entities operating under their auspices.
Section 223A(b) Definitions
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its breadth is consequential.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this broad definition is essential to prevent circumvention of the prohibition, as foreign adversaries often use various proxies and affiliated organizations to fund research and acquire technology.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently capture legitimate academic or cultural exchange programs, leading to over-compliance or a chilling effect on non-sensitive collaborations with entities that have tangential links to the listed governments.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly expands the universe of prohibited funding, potentially impacting a wider range of university partnerships and funding streams than a narrower definition would.