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

HB34

HB34 restricts investments by covered public entities in securities and banks linked to designated countries, and creates a company-listing and divestment process.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to prohibiting the investment of state money in certain countries and in certain private business entities in those countries.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Metcalf, Hefner, Bonnen, Capriglione. 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?

HB34 restricts investments by covered public entities in securities and banks linked to designated countries, and creates a company-listing and divestment process. It names China, Iran, North Korea and Russia, and lets the governor designate additional countries after the required public-safety and Homeland Security Council consultations. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; official history.

This is not a ban on ordinary Texans owning investments. The existing definition covers entities subject to the Public Funds Investment Act, the Employees Retirement System, the Teacher Retirement System, and the comptroller’s investment of state funds. It can therefore reach covered local-government and other public funds as well as state funds, subject to the statutory applicability limits. Government Code Chapter 2270 definitions; Chapter 2256 applicability.

The law has separate restrictions: a covered entity may not acquire a security issued by a country of concern or an entity owned, controlled by, or subject to that country’s jurisdiction; and it may not invest or deposit money in a bank whose principal place of business is there. These are distinct from the following company-listing rules. New Sections 2270.0122–.0124.

A company can enter the new “scrutinized” category if it is organized, headquartered or principally based in a country of concern; is controlled by that country, its government, ruling party or military; or is majority-owned or controlled through ownership interests by the country or its citizens. “Control” includes power over management or policy, with an exception for power arising solely from an official company position. But the category excludes a company qualifying as a U.S. person under the incorporated federal definition, or receiving no more than 50% of its total annual global revenue from a country of concern, even if it has an otherwise-covered subsidiary or affiliate. The federal definition includes U.S.-organized legal entities and their foreign branches; it is not merely a test of shareholders’ citizenship. These exceptions are written into the company-category provision, not as blanket exemptions from the separate security-acquisition and bank rules. Final law, Sections 1 and 3; 15 CFR 772.1, “U.S. Person” definition.

The comptroller had to add the new category to its list by January 1, 2026. For affected listed holdings, the investor must notify the company and offer 90 days from receipt to change its organization, ownership or location so it no longer qualifies. Otherwise, it must dispose of the company’s publicly traded securities, retaining the stated private-equity-fund exception. The Senate text overrides the older general exception for indirect holdings in actively managed funds. The law also expands the exception for a company the U.S. government affirmatively excludes from the relevant federal sanctions regime; merely being absent from a sanctions list is not the stated test. Final law, Sections 2, 4–6.

The new divestment section refers to an existing schedule—at least half by day 270 and all by day 450—but HB34 did not update that schedule’s notice cross-references to name the new section. It should not be used here to calculate a particular company’s deadline. Existing provisions also allow documented, limited delay or reinvestment when statutory portfolio-loss tests are met: the benchmark is 99.7% of the hypothetical portfolio value without divestment, supported by the required evidence and reports, not a general discretion to ignore the law. The underlying chapter also provides attorney-general enforcement and a September 1, 2037 expiration. This review explains the enacted framework, not a specific holding’s eligibility, a current company list or completed divestments. Sections 2270.0206–.0209.

What changed along the way?

The filed, House committee and House-passed versions are substantively the same. The Senate substitute added the control definition; expressly added headquarters and government/party/military control; removed a separate broad ownership test while retaining the majority-ownership test; and introduced the U.S.-person and 50%-revenue exceptions. It also narrowed the fund exception in the new divestment provision to private equity, instead of retaining the general actively-managed-fund exemption. All these changes survived into the final law. Filed bill; House committee text; House-passed text; Senate text.

The amendment index lists no separate amendments, but the official Senate packet contains a whole-bill substitute stamped adopted May 19. Its five pages were checked against the Senate text and enrolled law; the House concurred May 23. There was no conference version. Amendment index; Senate substitute, PDF pages 6–10.

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?

The restrictions reduce covered public funds’ exposure to the specified countries and companies. Public investment managers must identify affected holdings, send notices, evaluate exceptions and adjust portfolios. Companies may lose access to these public investments or face pressure to reorganize. Retirement beneficiaries and taxpayers could bear costs if replacement investments perform worse or transactions cost money; the sources do not establish a dollar loss or prove a financial benefit.

The final fiscal note says the impact cannot be determined: the retirement systems could not estimate future affected investments or compare returns with replacements. Comptroller implementation costs were expected to fit existing resources, but that is not a finding that the investment restrictions cost nothing. Local fiscal effects were also undetermined. The earlier actuarial statement likewise reported uncertain return effects and no proposed change to pension funding or benefit obligations; its description of the broader filed company test is not the final law. Final fiscal note; filed-version actuarial statement.

Official sources

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