Disclose GIFT Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1999
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Education
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2025-07-21T19:44:15Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Disclose GIFT Act (H.R. 1999) aims to promote transparency in higher education by requiring faculty and staff at certain U.S. institutions to report gifts and contracts from foreign sources. This is intended to address potential conflicts of interest and national security risks, such as espionage, stemming from foreign influences on academic research and activities. It builds on existing laws to extend reporting requirements from institutions to individuals.
Key Provisions
- Reporting Requirements for Individuals:
- Covered individuals (faculty, staff, and others involved in research, as defined by national security guidelines) at eligible institutions must submit annual reports by July 31 on foreign gifts and contracts from the prior year.
- Gifts must be reported if valued over the federal "minimal value" threshold (currently around $480 for gifts to employees) or if value is undetermined; includes receipt date.
- Contracts must be reported based on value and source:
- For non-concerning foreign sources: $5,000 or more, or undetermined value; includes key dates (entry, effective, termination).
- For "foreign countries of concern" (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) or "foreign entities of concern" (e.g., entities on U.S. security lists): Any value ($0 or more), or undetermined; requires full contract text and addenda.
- Exceptions for gifts include certain student scholarships from individuals (up to 15 students) and intellectual property licenses not tied to controlled technologies.
- Institutional Responsibilities:
- Eligible institutions (those receiving over $50 million in federal R&D funds in the past five years or funds under Title VI of the Higher Education Act for international education) must:
- Adopt a disclosure policy within 90 days of enactment.
- Maintain a publicly searchable, downloadable online database of reports (excluding personal identifiers like names), available for at least 5 years or until contract end; searchable by date, country, department, and foreign source (if not an individual).
- Develop a plan to detect and manage espionage risks from foreign gifts/contracts, using communications, accurate reporting, and policy enforcement.
- Keep internal records of individuals' names for investigations or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (a law allowing public access to government records).
- Enforcement and Compliance:
- The Department of Education's Secretary investigates violations; if knowing or willful, requests the Attorney General to file a civil lawsuit to compel compliance.
- Fines for compelled compliance: At least $250,000 or the unreported amount (whichever is greater) for first violation; double for repeats (at least $500,000).
- Institutions must appoint 1–3 compliance officers to certify adherence and maintain an internal policy.
- After three violations leading to court orders, institutions lose eligibility for federal student aid programs for at least two years, regaining it only after two years of full compliance.
- Department of Education must provide a single contact point for guidance, quarterly updates on investigations, and a public list of concerning countries/entities (updated with notifications to institutions).
- Government Accountability Office (GAO) must study and report within three years on improving agency coordination for enforcement, including better information sharing and compliance processes.
- Definitions:
- Foreign source: Governments, entities, or individuals outside the U.S., including agents or affiliates.
- Attributable country: The source's citizenship, residence, or incorporation country.
- Concerning countries/entities: Defined by existing national security laws, focusing on threats to U.S. interests.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands Section 117 of the Higher Education Act (which requires institutions to report aggregate foreign gifts over $250,000) by adding individual-level reporting (Section 117A) and detailed enforcement (Section 117B).
- Introduces stricter thresholds for concerning foreign sources (any value vs. higher thresholds for others), public databases, and espionage risk plans—none of which exist in current law.
- Ties compliance to federal aid eligibility via program agreements, with escalating penalties including long-term funding loss after repeated violations.
- Mandates a GAO study for future improvements, promoting inter-agency coordination absent in prior rules.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases workload for the Department of Education (investigations, guidance, website maintenance) and Department of Justice (civil actions); GAO will assess coordination with defense, state, and intelligence agencies, potentially leading to streamlined processes.
- On Citizens and Institutions: Faculty and staff face new annual reporting burdens, with institutions needing to build databases and compliance teams, raising administrative costs (especially for research universities). Public access to disclosures enhances transparency but may deter some international collaborations.
- On International Relations: Could strain ties with countries of concern by publicizing and scrutinizing their engagements with U.S. academia, potentially reducing foreign funding or partnerships while bolstering U.S. national security against influence operations.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Higher Education Institutions: Primarily large research universities and those receiving Title VI funds; must implement policies, databases, and officers.
- Faculty and Staff: "Covered individuals" in research roles required to report personal foreign interactions.
- Federal Agencies: Department of Education (oversight/enforcement), Department of Justice (lawsuits), and intelligence community (input on concerning entities).
- Public and Congress: Benefit from public databases and GAO reports for oversight.
- Foreign Entities: Governments, companies, or individuals engaging with U.S. academia, facing heightened scrutiny.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens enforcement through civil penalties and aid ineligibility, but relies on existing definitions (e.g., from defense laws) to avoid new litigation; protects privacy by anonymizing individual data while allowing FOIA access to names for probes.
- Constitutional: May raise First Amendment concerns if disclosures chill academic freedom or international speech, though focused on transparency rather than prohibition; courts could review "knowing/willful" violations for due process fairness.
- Political: Addresses bipartisan worries about foreign influence (e.g., intellectual property theft), potentially influencing U.S.-China academic ties; promotes national security without banning collaborations, but repeated violations could politically pressure non-compliant institutions.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Disclose Getting Involved in Foreign Transactions Act — issued 2025-03-10 — PDF (19 pages)