DETERRENT Act

Bill Number: H.R. 1048
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Education
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2025-03-31: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Last Updated: 2026-07-10T17:08:29Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The DETERRENT Act (H.R. 1048) aims to increase transparency in U.S. higher education by requiring institutions to disclose foreign gifts, contracts, and investments. It seeks to prevent undue influence from certain foreign countries and entities—particularly those posing national security risks—while promoting U.S. security, stability, and economic interests. The law amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enforce stricter reporting, prohibit risky contracts, and impose penalties for non-compliance.

Key Provisions

Disclosure of Foreign Gifts and Contracts (Section 117):
Institutions must report gifts or contracts from foreign sources (governments, entities, or individuals outside the U.S.) valued at $50,000 or more, or of indeterminate value, by July 31 annually.
All gifts from "foreign countries of concern" (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) or "foreign entities of concern" (e.g., entities tied to military or security risks) must be reported regardless of value.
Reports include details like source names, addresses, purposes, restrictions (e.g., conditions on faculty hiring or student admissions), dates, and values. For contracts with concerning entities, full unredacted copies must be provided.
Institutions substantially controlled by foreign sources must report annually on ownership and changes.
A public, searchable online database will be created by the Department of Education for all reports (with privacy protections for individual donors' names and addresses, except in high-risk cases).
Reports are shared with agencies like the FBI, CIA, and Department of Defense within 30 days.

Prohibition on Contracts with Certain Foreign Entities (Section 117A):
Bans contracts with foreign countries or entities of concern, defined as nations like China or entities linked to military/security threats.
Waivers are available for one-year periods if the contract benefits the institution's mission and U.S. interests; requests require 120 days' notice and certification.
Existing contracts get a one-year grace period; renewals must be re-approved.
If a partner is later designated as a concern, contracts must end within 60 days.

Institutional Policies for Faculty and Staff (Section 117B):
Large research institutions (those receiving over $50 million in federal R&D funds or certain international education grants) must create policies requiring faculty, staff, and affiliates to disclose foreign gifts (above minimal value) and contracts (above $5,000 or indeterminate value) annually.
Includes a public, searchable database of disclosures and plans to counter espionage risks from foreign ties.
Privacy protections apply, but exceptions for contracts with concerning entities.

Investment Disclosure (Section 117C):
Wealthy private institutions (with over $6 billion in assets and $250 million in "investments of concern," like stakes in foreign entities of concern) must report purchases, sales, holdings, values, and gains annually.
Covers stocks, debt, or derivatives tied to concerning countries/entities; pooled funds (e.g., mutual funds) are included unless certified otherwise.
Public database for these reports.

Enforcement and Compliance (Section 117D):
The Department of Education investigates violations; the Attorney General can seek court orders for compliance.
Fines escalate for repeat offenses: e.g., up to twice the gift/contract value or percentages of federal funding (1-20% for disclosures; up to 200% of investment values).
Institutions must appoint 1-3 compliance officers to certify reports and policies.
A single Department contact handles inquiries; lists of concerning countries/entities are maintained and updated.
Three violations lead to two-year ineligibility for federal student aid.
A GAO study will review interagency coordination within three years.

Other Requirements:
Ties compliance to institutions' federal aid agreements.
Requires English translations of non-English documents (by non-foreign parties).
Backfills sharing of pre-enactment reports with agencies.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Expanded Reporting Thresholds and Scope: Previously, under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, reporting started at $250,000 aggregate from a single source; now it's $50,000 per gift/contract, with mandatory reporting for all items from concerning sources (no value threshold). Adds requirements for indeterminate values, restrictions, and full contract texts.
New Prohibitions and Waivers: Introduces outright bans on contracts with concerning entities (no prior equivalent), plus a structured waiver process involving interagency review.
Public Access and Sharing: Creates searchable public databases (none existed before) and mandates interagency data sharing, overriding some privacy exemptions under laws like FOIA (Freedom of Information Act, which allows public access to government records but with exemptions).
Faculty/Staff and Investment Reporting: Adds entirely new sections (117B and 117C) for internal disclosures and investment tracking, targeting espionage and financial ties.
Enforcement Mechanisms: Introduces civil penalties, compliance officers, and aid ineligibility—stricter than prior voluntary or minimal reporting enforcement.
Definitions: Broadens "foreign source" to include agents and affiliates; defines "foreign country/entity of concern" based on national security laws (e.g., tying to defense authorizations).

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Increases workload for the Department of Education (investigations, databases, waivers) and requires coordination with agencies like DOJ, FBI, and intelligence community for reviews and enforcement. Could enhance national security monitoring but strain resources.
On Citizens and Institutions: U.S. colleges/universities face higher compliance costs (e.g., tracking, reporting, policies), potential fines, and aid loss, possibly reducing foreign funding and research collaborations. Students and faculty may see indirect effects via program changes or restricted opportunities; benefits include greater transparency to protect academic integrity.
On International Relations: May deter partnerships with countries like China, signaling U.S. concerns over influence operations, potentially escalating tensions or limiting educational exchanges. Could promote U.S. economic/security interests by curbing risky investments.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Higher Education Institutions: All participating in federal aid programs must comply; largest research universities and wealthy privates face the heaviest burdens (e.g., disclosures, policies, investments).
Faculty, Staff, and Affiliates: Required to report personal foreign ties, affecting researchers in fields like science or international studies.
Federal Agencies: Department of Education (lead enforcer), DOJ (litigation), intelligence/defense agencies (reviews), and GAO (study).
Foreign Entities and Governments: Countries/entities of concern (e.g., Chinese firms) limited in engaging U.S. institutions; other foreign donors face more scrutiny.
U.S. Taxpayers and Students: Impacts federal aid distribution and higher education costs/quality through enforcement and potential funding shifts.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Strengthens enforcement via civil actions and fines, but relies on "knowing or willful" violations to avoid overreach. Privacy exemptions for individuals balance transparency with FOIA protections; waiver process adds administrative review to prevent arbitrary bans.
Constitutional: Could raise First Amendment concerns if restrictions on academic collaborations are seen as limiting free speech or association, though national security justifications (e.g., espionage prevention) may uphold it under precedents like foreign agent laws. No direct challenge to due process, as institutions get notice and appeal paths.
Political: Reflects bipartisan focus on countering foreign (especially Chinese) influence in academia, aligning with broader U.S. policies like the CHIPS Act. May politicize education funding if enforcement varies by administration; promotes accountability but risks burdening institutions without proven threats.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Cosponsors (21)

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8], Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4], Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12], Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3], Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5], Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5], Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Onder, Robert [R-MO-3], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6], Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9], Rep. Bean, Aaron [R-FL-4], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3], Rep. James, John [R-MI-10], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Recent Actions

2025-03-31: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
2025-03-27: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-03-27: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 169 (Roll no. 83). (Roll call 83)
2025-03-27: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 169 (Roll no. 83). (Roll call 83)
2025-03-27: The House adopted the amendments en gros as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
2025-03-27: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
2025-03-27: The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1048.
2025-03-27: The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
2025-03-27: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1312-1316)
2025-03-25: Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1048 as unfinished business.
2025-03-25: On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
2025-03-25: Mr. Walberg moved that the committee rise.
2025-03-25: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 6, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Tlaib demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
2025-03-25: DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 6.
2025-03-25: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 5, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Tlaib demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.

Bill Versions

Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act — issued 2025-03-27 — PDF (62 pages)
Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act — issued 2025-02-06 — PDF (55 pages)
Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act — issued 2025-03-31 — PDF (61 pages)
Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act — issued 2025-03-14 — PDF (58 pages)