H.R.1048 - Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act; DETERRENT Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1048, the DETERRENT Act, aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase transparency regarding foreign gifts and contracts to institutions of higher education. It also seeks to prohibit contracts between these institutions and certain foreign entities or countries of concern.
The bill mandates stricter disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts, including detailed reporting of terms, amounts, and the foreign source's information. It also establishes a waiver process for institutions seeking to engage in contracts with foreign countries or entities of concern, subject to approval by the Secretary of Education.
Furthermore, the Act requires institutions to maintain policies regarding conflicts of interest arising from foreign gifts and contracts, and to disclose certain investment holdings related to countries or entities of concern. It also outlines enforcement mechanisms, including investigations, civil actions, and fines for non-compliance.
Expected Effects
The DETERRENT Act will likely increase administrative burdens on institutions of higher education due to enhanced reporting requirements and the need for compliance officers.
It could also lead to a decrease in funding from certain foreign sources, as institutions may be hesitant to accept gifts or enter into contracts that require extensive disclosure or could be prohibited. The Act may also impact academic freedom and research collaborations, particularly those involving countries or entities of concern.
However, it could also increase public trust in higher education by providing greater transparency and accountability regarding foreign influence.
Potential Benefits
- Increased transparency in higher education funding and contracts.
- Reduced potential for undue foreign influence in academic research and curriculum.
- Enhanced national security by limiting collaborations with entities of concern.
- Greater awareness of potential conflicts of interest for faculty and staff.
- Publicly accessible database of foreign gifts, contracts, and investments.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Increased administrative burden and costs for institutions of higher education.
- Potential chilling effect on international collaborations and research.
- Possible loss of funding from legitimate foreign sources.
- Concerns about academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
- Potential for bureaucratic delays in waiver approvals.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The DETERRENT Act's alignment with the Constitution is complex. Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations (Article I, Section 8), which could be argued to extend to regulating foreign funding of educational institutions. However, the First Amendment protects academic freedom and freedom of association, which could be challenged if the Act is interpreted too broadly to restrict legitimate research collaborations or the exchange of ideas.
The requirement for institutions to disclose information does not appear to violate any specific constitutional provision, as long as the information requested is relevant to a legitimate government interest and the disclosure requirements are not overly burdensome. The Act's enforcement mechanisms, including investigations and civil actions, must adhere to due process requirements.
Overall, the Act's constitutionality will likely depend on how narrowly it is interpreted and applied, balancing national security concerns with the protection of academic freedom and other constitutional rights.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).