Transatlantic Academic Security and Risk Mitigation Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7616
Last Updated: September 2, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

ID: J000304

Follow the money

The bill

Transatlantic Academic Security and Risk Mitigation Act

HR. 7616, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$82,443 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 220-222 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 19.

March 25, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Transatlantic Academic Security and Risk Mitigation Act (HR 7616) claims to aim at identifying and mitigating relationships between European institutions and "covered entities of concern" (read: Chinese organizations) that pose a risk to US foreign policy interests. How quaint. In reality, this bill is just another attempt to justify the existence of bureaucratic busybodies and provide a veneer of legitimacy for xenophobic posturing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs to develop a strategy (because, you know, strategies are always effective) to identify and mitigate these "risky" relationships. It also demands an assessment of Chinese entities' activities in Europe, because who doesn't love a good game of "spot the commie"? The bill's definitions section is a laundry list of Chinese organizations that might be considered "entities of concern," including those involved in military-civil fusion, defense industrial base, or (gasp!) providing support to security organizations. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory mention of Uyghur Muslims, because who doesn't love a good human rights fig leaf?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** European institutions of higher education and research, Chinese entities (because they're the obvious bogeymen), and, of course, the US State Department, which gets to justify its budget by producing yet another pointless report. Oh, and let's not forget the congressional committees that get to pretend they're doing something useful by receiving briefings on this "strategy."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a sedated sloth on a treadmill. It will create more bureaucratic red tape, provide a fig leaf for xenophobic rhetoric, and maybe – just maybe – lead to some tokenistic sanctions or diplomatic posturing. But hey, who needs actual policy substance when you can have empty gestures? The real implication is that this bill will further erode academic freedom and stifle international collaboration, all under the guise of "national security." How's that for a diagnosis? This legislative abomination is suffering from a bad case of "Security Theater-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive reliance on rhetoric over substance, and a healthy dose of paranoia. Prognosis: more of the same pointless posturing, with a side of hypocrisy and a dash of incompetence.

In conclusion, HR 7616 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to confuse, mislead, and ultimately do nothing meaningful. It's a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians in crafting empty, self-serving legislation that serves only to perpetuate their own power and influence. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do – like watching paint dry or waiting for Godot.

Related Topics

Foreign Aid & DiplomacyTrade & International CommerceNational Security & Intelligence
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,443
14 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$82,443

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
TARPLEY, JAMES
2 transactions
$13,200
2
BURKHARDT, JOAN
2 transactions
$13,068
3
COUNTRYMAN, LOUEEN
3 transactions
$9,900
4
ARCHER, LYNNE
2 transactions
$6,870
5
DAMBROSIO, KATHLEEN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
HIMEBAUGH, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,270
7
BURZYNSKI, STANISLAW
1 transaction
$3,435
8
PERRIN, JOE
1 transaction
$3,300
9
KOVSCHAK, ANGELA
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BALLER, JIM
1 transaction
$3,300
11
HAYNES, JOHN T
1 transaction
$3,300
12
FLETCHER, J'MELLE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GRAVES, WILLIAM E
1 transaction
$3,300
14
COHEN, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6]

ID: F000484

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

21

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

ID: S001224

Top Contributors

21

1
TUCKER HILL HOA
OrganizationALLEN, TX
$300
Jun 15, 2023
2
MULLIGI, GINO
NAPOLIAC'S • MANAGER
IndividualWYLIE, TX
$9,000
May 23, 2023
3
FRITCHER, SAMMY
AIRBORNE ASPECT INC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
Aug 19, 2024
4
LOBB, PAT
SELF • CAR DEALER
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$6,600
Aug 31, 2024
5
MYERS, ROBERT
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMCKINNEY, TX
$6,600
May 19, 2023
6
HUFFINES, RAY
HUFFINES AUTO DEALERSHIPS • AUTO DEALER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 26, 2023
7
MOSES, FRED
TELCOM ELECTRIC SUPPLY
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
Mar 9, 2023
8
LI, QINGSONG
SONGHAO HOLDINGS LLC • OWNER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,000
May 3, 2023
9
CHALIN, THOMAS
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX
$5,800
Jan 30, 2024
10
CHALIN, THOMAS
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX
$5,800
Aug 12, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 27 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of State

Strong
Vector: 68%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7616 aligns closely with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening transatlantic cooperation, countering Chinese influence, and focusing on core diplomatic and security priorities in Europe, particularly by addressing risks from European academic ties to Chinese entities involved in military-civil fusion and malign influence."

Key themes:countering Chinese influencetransatlantic cooperationacademic security risksmilitary-civil fusiondiplomatic strategy

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning — 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either.

Department of State

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 State Department section aim to reduce European dependence on China and mitigate security risks posed by Chinese entities, particularly in academic and research contexts, while strengthening transatlantic cooperation to counter Chinese influence."

Key themes:China influence in Europeacademic/research securitytransatlantic cooperationcountering military-civil fusionstrategic competition with China

— 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either. — 189 — Department of State The priority for statecraft is advancing the U.S.–Indian role as a cornerstone of the Quad, a cooperative framework including the U.S., India, Japan, and Aus- tralia. The Quad is comprised of the key nations in coordinating efforts for a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is an overarching group that nests the key U.S. bilateral and trilateral cooperative efforts that facilitate U.S. collaborative efforts across the Indo–Pacific. The State Department should also encourage the “Quad-Plus” concept that allows other regional powers to participate in Quad coordination on issues of mutual interest. Further, the State Department must support an inte- grated federal effort to deliver a revamped regional strategy for South Asia, as well as leading the execution of key tasks to implement the strategy.15 The Arctic Because of Alaska, the U.S. is an Arctic nation. The Arctic is a vast expanse of land and sea rich in resources including fish, minerals, and energy. For example, the region is estimated to contain 90 million barrels of oil and one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered natural gas reserves.16 The Arctic is lightly populated: Only 4 million people in the world live above the Arctic Circle, with more than half of those living in Russia. Only around 68,000 people in Alaska live above the Arctic Circle.17 However, the sheer immensity of the Alaskan Arctic means its population density is less than one person per square mile.18 The United States has several strong interests in the Arctic region. The rate of melting ice during summer months has led to increased interest not only from shipping and tourism sectors, but also from America’s global competitors, who are interested in exploiting the region’s strategic importance and accessing its bounty of natural resources. In the not-too-distant future, there will be a growing interest in the Arctic from both state and non-state actors alike. China has been open about its interest in the region, primarily as a highway for trade but also for its rich natural resources. While the PRC’s increasing intervention in Arctic affairs is a bit strained because it does not have an Arctic coastline, Russia does—and Russia has made no secret of its view that the Arctic is vital for economic and military reasons. Russia has invested heavily in new and refurbished Arctic bases and cold-weather equipment and capabilities. The north star of U.S. Arctic policy should remain national sov- ereignty, safeguarded through robust capabilities as well as through diplomatic, economic, and legal attentiveness. The next Administration should embrace the view that NATO must acknowl- edge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance. With the likely accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, every Arctic nation except for Russia will be a NATO member state. NATO has been slow to appreciate that the Arctic is a theater that it must defend, especially considering Russia’s brazen aggression against Ukraine. NATO must develop and implement an Arctic strategy that recognizes the importance of

Department of State

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 220-222AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on mitigating security risks from European academic ties to Chinese entities of concern, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening transatlantic cooperation and addressing foreign malign influence, though the bill's academic security focus is more specific than the broader Europe policy outlined in the document."

Key themes:transatlantic cooperationforeign malign influencenational security risksdiplomatic engagementEuropean security

— 187 — Department of State United States, but at least some of them would eventually try if allowed to consolidate their operations and plan such attacks. The immediate threat they pose lies in their abilities and willingness to strike American targets in their regions of operation or to harm U.S. interests in other ways. The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance. l Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has less- than-fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise. l Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners. Europe American foreign policy has long benefited from cooperation with the countries of Europe (generally, the EU), and any conservative Administration should build on this resource. Yet the transatlantic relationship is complex, with security, trade, and political dimensions. First, the Europe, Eurasia, and Russia region is made up of relatively wealthy and technologically advanced societies that should be expected to bear a fair share of both security needs and global security architecture: The United States cannot be expected to provide a defense umbrella for countries unwilling to contribute appropriately. At stake after 2024 will be examining the status of the Wales Pledge of 2 percent of gross domestic product toward defense by NATO members. The new Administration will also want to encourage nations to exceed that pledge. Second, transatlantic trade is a significant part of the global economy, and it is in the U.S. national interest to amplify it, especially because this means weaning

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills