Preventing Research Ownership Transfer to External Competitive Threats (PROTECT) Act of 2026
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7510
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Commerce
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-27T19:42:07Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The PROTECT Act of 2026 aims to safeguard U.S. national security and intellectual property (IP) by prohibiting U.S. universities and their affiliates from transferring ownership or rights to research developed at these institutions to certain foreign governments considered threats.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- "Covered research" includes any invention, discovery, or IP developed fully or partially by U.S. universities or their faculty, staff, or students.
- "Covered foreign government" refers to governments of "prohibited nations," including their agencies or controlled entities.
- "Prohibited nations" explicitly include Russia, China, and Iran; nations at war with the U.S.; those supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations (as defined under U.S. immigration law); state sponsors of terrorism (per the U.S. Department of State); or any other nation the Secretary of State deems a national security threat.
- "Intellectual property rights" covers patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, data rights, and similar proprietary protections.
- "U.S. university" means any higher education institution (as defined in federal education law) headquartered in the U.S.
- Core Prohibition: U.S. universities and affiliates are banned from any contracts, licenses, sales, or transfers granting IP rights in covered research to covered foreign governments. This applies to transactions starting from the date the law is enacted.
- Penalties:
- Civil fines up to $500,000 per violation if it does not endanger national security.
- Fines up to $5,000,000 per violation if it involves national security risks, especially research related to critical energy or defense.
- Any funds or benefits received from prohibited transfers can be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.
- Enforcement is handled by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State.
- Secretary of State Role: The Secretary determines prohibited nations, threat levels, and whether research involves critical issues. These decisions are final and generally not subject to court review, except for claims of clear constitutional violations (e.g., due process rights).
- Severability: If any part of the law is ruled invalid, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill introduces a new, specific ban on IP transfers from U.S. academic research to adversarial foreign governments, which was not previously codified in this targeted manner. It builds on existing frameworks like state sponsorship of terrorism designations and terrorist organization lists but adds penalties, seizure mechanisms, and broad discretionary authority for the Secretary of State to expand the list of prohibited nations. No amendments to prior laws are specified; it creates standalone prohibitions and enforcement tools.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases workload for the Departments of State (for designations and consultations) and Justice (for enforcement and seizures), potentially requiring new resources for monitoring academic transactions.
- On Citizens: U.S. university faculty, staff, and students may face restrictions on international collaborations, funding, or partnerships, limiting global research opportunities but enhancing protection of U.S.-developed innovations.
- On International Relations: Could strain ties with prohibited nations (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) by blocking academic exchanges and IP sharing, signaling U.S. prioritization of security over open collaboration. It may encourage allies to adopt similar measures but risk retaliatory restrictions on U.S. researchers abroad.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Universities and Affiliates: Directly restricted in dealings; face fines, fund seizures, and compliance burdens.
- Prohibited Foreign Governments: Barred from acquiring U.S. academic IP, potentially hindering their technological advancement.
- U.S. Government: Agencies like State and Justice gain enforcement roles; taxpayers may benefit from protected IP but bear monitoring costs.
- Researchers and Innovators: Faculty, staff, and students at U.S. institutions, who may need to scrutinize partnerships to avoid violations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The law's broad definitions (e.g., "know-how" or "other threats") could lead to interpretive challenges in enforcement. Penalties emphasize national security, potentially prioritizing protection over free exchange of ideas.
- Constitutional: Limits judicial review of key decisions to agency discretion, which may raise due process or separation of powers concerns, though it carves out exceptions for constitutional claims. This could invite lawsuits testing First Amendment protections for academic speech or international collaboration.
- Political: Targets geopolitical adversaries, aligning with U.S. policies on technology competition and counterterrorism. It may fuel debates on balancing innovation with security, especially in fields like AI, energy, and defense, without evident bipartisan controversy in the bill text.
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
- 2026-02-11: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2026-02-11: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-11: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Preventing Research Ownership Transfer to External Competitive Threats (PROTECT) Act of 2026 — issued 2026-02-11 — PDF (6 pages)