2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB127

HB127 creates a university research-security council and rules for covered public higher-education institutions on foreign gifts, partnerships, researchers, travel and software.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to measures to protect institutions of higher education from foreign adversaries and to the prosecution of the criminal offense of theft of trade secrets; increasing a criminal penalty.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Wilson, Hefner, Shaheen, Howard, Lambert. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB127 creates a university research-security council and rules for covered public higher-education institutions on foreign gifts, partnerships, researchers, travel and software. It also increases the penalty for stealing trade secrets with intent to benefit a foreign government or its representatives. It is not a blanket ban on international students or foreign academic collaboration. Final law; official history.

Who is covered. New Education Code Chapter 51B covers public institutions within Section 61.003’s definition—including universities, medical/dental units, public state colleges and other higher-education agencies—but excludes public junior colleges and public technical institutes. The council also allows qualifying private R1 research institutions to participate; that does not make all of Chapter 51B apply to private colleges. “Foreign adversary” in this chapter means a country identified as a national-security risk in at least one of the three most recent U.S. intelligence community annual threat assessments, or designated by the governor after consulting the public-safety director. It is not simply every foreign country or a fixed list printed in HB127. Final law, Sections 1–2; institution definitions; federal annual-report provision.

A shared security council. Each public university system and Texas Southern University appoints a research-security officer. Systems overseeing medical schools may add an officer, and eligible private R1 institutions may opt in; those additional medical and private-institution members cannot vote. Texas A&M’s system representative is the initial chair. The council must meet quarterly, develop best practices and an optional model policy, establish a security-accreditation process and offer annual officer training. The coordinating board provides administrative support on request. Its overall security report is due December 1 of even-numbered years. That report is confidential; council work under its best-practices/training duties is also confidential unless the council approves dissemination to institutions. Separate restrictions bar council donations from specified federally restricted entities and certain foreign-government-owned or controlled sources. These council-donor restrictions use federal references distinct from Chapter 51B’s country definition. Final law, Section 1.

Gifts and investigations. An institution or employee generally cannot knowingly accept a direct or indirect gift from a covered foreign source of a foreign adversary beyond a minimal value to be set by rule. “Gift” means money or property. The final “foreign source” definition covers specified governments, entities, parties and their agents—not every foreign individual. A separate provision allows an institution to accept a larger gift from an individual citizen of a foreign adversary after council-based vetting; a gift over $25,000 additionally requires the institution chief executive’s approval and disclosure to the council. Those individual-citizen gifts have a disclosure exception, subject to other state or federal law. The law requires ethics-policy provisions, an employee reporting mechanism, and copies to the coordinating board of required federal foreign-gift/contract reports. It does not replace the federal disclosure rules. Institutions must investigate specified compliance-officer or sworn complaints; requested records are due within 10 business days unless a later date is agreed. Final law, Sections 51B.051–.052; existing federal disclosure law.

Academic partnerships and student organizations. Covered partnerships with foreign-adversary sources or controlled entities are prohibited if they constrain the institution’s freedom of contract, let the adversary direct/control/influence its curriculum or values, or promote an agenda detrimental to state or national safety or security. Institutions annually certify compliance or noncompliance with council partnership best practices; the council annually identifies institutions that did not certify compliance. Student organizations cannot accept adversary/agent gifts or agreements providing financial support, but may collect membership dues and fees. They must certify compliance annually. Violators lose institutional benefits and recognition or registration. Benefits include access to facilities, communications channels and generally available student-organization funding—not just cash payments. Final law, Sections 51B.101–.103; benefit and student-organization definitions.

Research screening. Screening applies before an offer of a research/support job or access to research or other sensitive data when the person is a foreign citizen without U.S. permanent residence, or has the specified institutional affiliation or at least one year of employment/training in a foreign adversary, excluding U.S.-agency employment/training. Institutions may screen others too. Background checks assess security risks; an active federal security clearance can support a waiver, and a council risk framework may allow low-risk waivers. Foreign citizens subject to screening must provide passport and latest nonimmigrant-visa-application copies, plus any council-required information; the visa copy may be returned or destroyed after extracting relevant information. A campus or system research-security office verifies submissions, completes the statutory requirements before hiring/access, and reports screening-based employment rejections to designated law enforcement. A substantial undisclosed educational, employment or research activity/publication/presentation blocks covered employment unless a department head or designee documents why it is being disregarded. Final law, Sections 51B.151–.153.

Travel, software and funding accountability. Institutions need risk-based employment-related foreign-travel approval and monitoring, with security-office preapproval for travel identified by that framework. Relevant adversary-travel/activity records must be kept at least three years, longer if another law requires, and specified travel is reported annually to the governing board. The council and coordinating board review education software and publish a prohibited list; institutions cannot enter or renew contracts for software on that list. Before spending a fiscal year’s appropriations, a governing board must certify prior-year compliance to the specified state authorities. Boards also testify between regular legislative sessions. State-auditor checks occur at least every four years; an institution found to have spent money in violation gets 180 days to cure. Failure to cure bars formula-funding increases, institutional enhancements and exceptional items in the following state fiscal biennium—not an automatic permanent loss of all funding. Final law, Sections 51B.201–.301.

Trade-secret theft. The existing crime includes knowingly stealing, copying or communicating a protected trade secret without the owner’s effective consent. HB127 raises it from a third-degree to a second-degree felony when the prosecution shows intent to benefit a foreign agent, government or instrumentality. This enhancement is not limited to universities or designated foreign adversaries. The ordinary prison range changes from 2–10 years to 2–20 years; either degree can also carry a fine up to $10,000. Individual sentencing can depend on other laws. Final law, Sections 3–4; offense definition; penalty ranges.

Different start dates matter. The general effective date is September 1, 2025; the criminal change applies only when no element occurred before that date. Student-organization rules begin with academic year 2025–26. Gift rules, partnership best-practice certification, screening and submission requirements in Sections 51B.051, .102(b), .151 and .152 begin with the academic year immediately following adoption of their council standards. The appropriation certification starts with funds for the fiscal year beginning September 1, 2026. Council appointments were required by October 1, 2025, and its first meeting by January 1, 2026. Those are legal deadlines, not a finding here that appointments, standards or meetings occurred on time. Final law, Sections 5–10.

What changed along the way?

Committee changes were substantial. The introduced bill used the federal Commerce adversary list plus Qatar, coordinating-board approval of gifts/contracts, historical reporting, specified civil/administrative penalties and one-time audits. The House substitute introduced the research-security council, changed the country definition to the intelligence-assessment/governor test, replaced the gift-approval approach, removed the $10 million research-budget threshold for screening/travel, and added funding-compliance enforcement and broad vendor restrictions. The House committee and engrossed policy bodies match; these were not separate floor amendments. Introduced text; House substitute; engrossed text.

The Senate substitute excluded junior colleges/technical institutes, recast council membership, made the model policy optional, and added the vetted individual-gift path. It removed the House’s broad vendor-certification, contract-termination, five-year debarment and civil-penalty scheme—including the proposed minimum $250,000 vendor penalty. It also removed detailed mandatory résumé/checking steps and mandatory FBI submissions, allowed system-wide security offices and clearance waivers, narrowed travel requirements, replaced broader software language with a prohibited list, and changed partnership oversight. The earlier separate power to terminate partnerships at any time for any reason did not survive. Student-organization certification and phased start rules were added. Do not describe discarded proposals as enacted requirements. Senate substitute; final text.

One indexed floor amendment, adopted. Hughes offered Senate second-reading amendment F1 on May 29. All 11 instructions were checked against the Senate substitute and final law. It added coordinating-board administrative support; changed the council’s overall report from annual to every even-numbered year; removed individuals as a standalone category of “foreign source”; narrowed “gift” to money/property; revised the individual-citizen gift exception and its confidentiality rule; replaced individual partnership review/recommendations with annual best-practice certification and reporting of institutions not certifying compliance; allowed low-risk screening waivers; and put partnership certification into the standards-dependent start rule. It removed the proposed separate officer determination that an individual gift was not indirectly from an adversary government, while retaining council-based vetting and the over-$25,000 approval/disclosure requirements. These changes survive in the enrolled law. The House concurred in Senate amendments; no conference version is indexed. Amendment index and disposition; complete amendment; version index.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Potential benefits: institutions, researchers and owners of protected research could benefit from shared security practices, background checks and safeguards against foreign interference. These are intended protections, not measured reductions in espionage. Vetted donors and eligible collaborators retain paths to participation; junior colleges/technical institutes are excluded from Chapter 51B, and the final text allows risk-based exceptions rather than treating every international connection alike.

Burdens and trade-offs: covered institutions must administer screening, gift review, records, travel controls, software restrictions, certifications and audits. Affected researchers may face documentation, privacy and hiring burdens; organizations and partnerships can lose institutional support or opportunities. Confidentiality protects security information but also limits public access to some council work and gifts. Institutions that do not cure an adverse audit finding risk specified future funding benefits. People convicted under the new trade-secret enhancement face the higher penalty range described above.

Fiscal estimate, with an important limit: the May 29 final fiscal note says no significant state or local fiscal implication is anticipated, assumes ordinary costs can be absorbed with existing resources, and assumes no significant correctional-resource effect. But it separately says the Senate floor amendment’s fiscal impact cannot be determined; criminal-penalty revenue also cannot be estimated. Therefore this is not a finding that the final law costs nothing. The earlier introduced-bill estimate of an $844,996 General Revenue-related cost through August 31, 2027 applied to a different proposal, including one-time audits and staffing; it is not the final-law estimate or an appropriation. Final fiscal note; introduced fiscal note.

Review boundary: checked the official history, all five text versions, all indexed amendment instructions and their final wording, all six fiscal notes, criminal-impact statements and relevant statutory definitions. This explains the enacted framework and its transition rules, not whether every institution has complied, which current countries/entities fall on changing lists, or whether standards have since triggered each delayed duty. It does not determine a particular donor’s, researcher’s or partnership’s legal eligibility.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.