HR-9074-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Scott Perry (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to lower the dollar threshold that triggers mandatory disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts at colleges and universities from $250,000 to $50,000. It would also require reports to include more detail — specifically, which foreign government department, agency, or division is responsible for the gift or contract, and the stated purpose or intended use of the funds. Additionally, the bill would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report to Congress on how well institutions currently comply with existing foreign gift disclosure requirements.
Who benefits
Federal policymakers and national security agencies who would gain broader visibility into foreign financial relationships with U.S. universities. Taxpayers and the general public who would have access to more comprehensive disclosure data. Journalists, researchers, and watchdog organizations that monitor foreign influence in higher education. Domestic donors and research sponsors who compete with foreign-funded programs. Students and faculty at institutions where undisclosed foreign funding may have influenced curriculum or research priorities.
Who is hurt
Colleges and universities — particularly large research institutions — that would face increased administrative and compliance costs to track and report a larger volume of transactions. Foreign governments, foundations, and companies that fund U.S. academic research and may face reputational or diplomatic scrutiny. International academic partnerships and exchange programs that involve financial arrangements near or above the new $50,000 threshold. Smaller institutions with limited compliance staff that may struggle to meet the new reporting requirements. Foreign students and scholars whose home-country institutions or governments fund U.S. academic programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing $250,000 threshold is far too high and has allowed significant foreign financial influence to go unreported and unscrutinized. They point to Department of Education investigations between 2019 and 2021 that found over $6.5 billion in previously undisclosed foreign funding at U.S. universities, suggesting widespread non-compliance and gaps in the current law. They contend that lowering the threshold to $50,000 and requiring more granular detail about the source and purpose of funds is a proportionate response to documented national security concerns about foreign governments — particularly China — using academic funding to access sensitive research and shape university programs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the fivefold reduction in the reporting threshold would impose a significant and disproportionate compliance burden on universities, requiring them to track and report thousands of additional transactions — including routine academic grants, conference sponsorships, and small research collaborations — that pose no plausible national security risk. They contend that the bill's broad application to all foreign sources, rather than targeting high-risk countries or sensitive research areas, would chill legitimate international academic exchange and damage the global research partnerships that U.S. universities depend on. Critics also note that existing Section 117 enforcement has been inconsistent, suggesting the core problem is inadequate enforcement of current law rather than an insufficient reporting threshold.