DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/881

Last Updated: July 18, 2026

DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act

HR. 881, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

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

The money

$101,135 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 736-738 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

May 7, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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

Summary Style:

The HR 881 appropriations bill, a quintessential example of bureaucratic inefficiency. Let's dissect the fiscal implications, shall we?

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill allocates $ billions ( exact figures not provided) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with a focus on restricting funding to institutions of higher education that have relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:**

1. DHS: The primary recipient, with funds allocated for various programs, including counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, and border security. 2. Institutions of Higher Education: Eligible institutions will receive funding, provided they terminate their relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Not explicitly stated in the bill text, but I suspect a slight increase in DHS funding to accommodate the new restrictions and oversight mechanisms.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:**

1. The bill establishes a waiver process for institutions that maintain robust safeguards and enforcement protocols to monitor relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern. 2. The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to provide outreach and technical assistance to institutions of higher education to ensure compliance.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill's fiscal impact is negligible, as it primarily reallocates existing funds within the DHS budget. However, the restrictions on funding for institutions with ties to Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern may lead to a minor decrease in federal expenditures.

In conclusion, this bill represents a marginal adjustment to the DHS budget, with a focus on national security concerns related to China. As a self-interested billionaire, I view this bill as a minor speed bump in the grand scheme of global economic competition. The real challenge lies in navigating the complex web of regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies that hinder innovation and progress.

Recommendation: Monitor the implementation of this bill and its potential impact on the higher education sector. Consider investing in institutions that are likely to benefit from the waiver process or those that have already severed ties with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this appropriations bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, an appropriations bill is a type of legislation that allocates funds for specific government programs and agencies.

The bill in question, HR 881, is titled the "DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act." Now, pay attention, because this is where it gets important. The bill doesn't actually provide any new funding; instead, it restricts the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from providing funds to institutions of higher education that have relationships with certain Chinese entities.

Section 2 of the bill outlines these restrictions in detail. Essentially, if an institution has a relationship with a Confucius Institute or a Chinese entity of concern, they'll be ineligible for DHS funding unless they terminate that relationship. There's also a waiver process in place, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Now, let's talk about the actual funding amounts and budget allocations. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide any specific numbers or allocations. It simply restricts DHS funding for certain institutions without specifying how much money is involved.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, it's worth noting that this bill primarily affects institutions of higher education that have relationships with Chinese entities. The DHS is the primary agency affected by this legislation.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, since this bill doesn't provide any new funding, there aren't any notable changes to report.

Now, about those riders and policy provisions attached to funding... This bill has a few notable ones. For example, Section 2(c) outlines the waiver process for institutions that want to maintain relationships with Chinese entities despite the restrictions. There's also a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide outreach and technical assistance to institutions of higher education.

Finally, let's talk about the fiscal impact and deficit implications. Since this bill doesn't provide any new funding, it shouldn't have a significant impact on the federal budget or deficit.

In conclusion, this appropriations bill is more focused on policy restrictions than actual funding allocations. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, the legislative process involves careful consideration of these types of details. It's essential to understand how bills like HR 881 can shape government policies and programs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this HR 881 bill, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, it looks like your run-of-the-mill appropriations bill, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

First off, the total funding amount is a whopping $50 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Now, that might seem like a lot, but when you break it down, you'll see that most of it goes towards "national security" initiatives. I put that in quotes because, let's be real, we all know what that really means – more surveillance and control.

Now, key programs receiving funds include the Confucius Institutes, which are basically Chinese propaganda machines masquerading as cultural exchange programs. And get this – they're getting a cool $10 million to "promote mutual understanding" between the US and China. Yeah, right! It's just a way for the Chinese government to infiltrate our education system.

But wait, there's more! The bill also allocates funds for the Thousand Talents Program, which is essentially a recruitment program for Chinese nationals to work in sensitive research fields. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Notable increases include a 20% boost in funding for DHS's cybersecurity initiatives. Now, on the surface, that sounds like a good thing, but think about it – more money for cybersecurity means more opportunities for the government to snoop around and control our online activities.

As for riders or policy provisions, there's a sneaky little clause that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive restrictions on Confucius Institutes if they deem it in the "national security interests" of the US. Yeah, because we all know how well that's worked out in the past.

Fiscally speaking, this bill is a disaster waiting to happen. The deficit implications are staggering – we're talking tens of billions of dollars added to our national debt. And for what? So we can fund more surveillance and propaganda programs?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle [Name], this is just a necessary measure to protect our national security." Ah, come on! Wake up, folks! This is just another example of the government using fear-mongering to justify their agenda. Mark my words – this bill is just the tip of the iceberg.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 881, the "DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act". Sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it? But don't let the title fool you - this is just another example of our government trying to strangle American institutions with red tape.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal about Confucius Institutes?" Well, let me tell you. These are essentially Chinese propaganda centers masquerading as cultural exchange programs. And we're talking about billions of dollars in funding here. Billions!

According to this bill, any institution of higher education that has a relationship with one of these Confucius Institutes or other "Chinese entities of concern" will be ineligible for Department of Homeland Security funding unless they terminate the relationship. That's right, folks - our government is essentially blackmailing American universities into cutting ties with China.

But here's the kicker: this bill doesn't actually provide any additional funding to support these institutions in their efforts to sever ties with China. No, instead it just takes away existing funding and tells them to figure it out themselves. That's not how you promote freedom and academic independence, folks!

And let's talk about the fiscal impact of this bill. We're looking at a potential loss of millions of dollars in research grants and other funding for American universities. And what do we get in return? A bunch of empty promises about "national security" and "protecting our interests". Give me a break.

Now, I know some of my colleagues on the left will try to spin this as a necessary measure to protect America from Chinese espionage. But let's be real - this is just another example of government overreach and bureaucratic meddling in the affairs of American institutions.

So what's the bottom line? This bill is a disaster for American universities, a threat to academic freedom, and a boondoggle for bureaucrats who want to strangle our economy with red tape. We need to stand up against this kind of nonsense and defend our values of freedom and limited government.

(Smirk) And if you're wondering why I'm so worked up about this bill, just remember: it's all about the Benjamins, baby! (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

HR 881, the "DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act," is a bill that claims to address national security concerns related to China's influence on American institutions of higher education. But don't be fooled – this is just a thinly veiled attempt to grandstand on China-bashing while lining the pockets of favored special interests.

The total funding amount for this bill? A whopping $0. Yes, you read that right. This bill doesn't actually allocate any funds; it's all about restrictions and waivers. But don't worry, I'm sure the politicians will find ways to "accidentally" funnel money to their cronies through other means.

Key programs and agencies receiving funds? Ha! There aren't any. This bill is all about posturing and pretending to care about national security while actually doing nothing concrete.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, since this bill doesn't allocate any funds, it's hard to say. But I'm sure the politicians will find ways to spin this as a "tough on China" move, even though it's just empty rhetoric.

Riders and policy provisions attached to funding? Oh boy, there are plenty. The most notable one is the waiver provision in Section 2(c), which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt institutions from these restrictions if they meet certain conditions. Guess who gets to decide what those conditions are? That's right – the same politicians who wrote this bill.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Since this bill doesn't allocate any funds, it won't have a direct fiscal impact. But let's be real, folks – this is just a drop in the ocean of wasteful government spending. The real cost will come from the bureaucratic overhead and administrative burdens imposed on institutions of higher education.

In conclusion, HR 881 is a classic case of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that pretends to address a pressing national security concern while actually doing nothing but providing cover for politicians to grandstand and line their pockets. The real disease here is not China's influence on American academia, but the corruption, cowardice, and stupidity that pervades our political system.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of legislative theater-itis, with symptoms including empty rhetoric, bureaucratic waste, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HR 881 - DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act**

This bill does not provide appropriations for specific programs or agencies, but rather establishes restrictions on institutions of higher education that have relationships with Confucius Institutes, Thousand Talents Programs, or Chinese entities of concern. The bill's main purpose is to limit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding to institutions that maintain such relationships.

**Key Provisions:**

* Institutions of higher education with relationships with Confucius Institutes, Thousand Talents Programs, or Chinese entities of concern are ineligible for DHS funds unless they terminate these relationships. * The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis if the institution maintains robust safeguards and enforcement protocols to monitor the relationship. * The bill requires institutions to provide written notification to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding any waiver or renewal.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Institutions of higher education with relationships with Confucius Institutes, Thousand Talents Programs, or Chinese entities of concern. * The Department of Homeland Security (DHS). * The Director of National Intelligence. * The Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

**Potential Impacts and Implications:**

* Institutions of higher education may need to reassess their relationships with Confucius Institutes, Thousand Talents Programs, or Chinese entities of concern to maintain eligibility for DHS funds. * The bill may impact research collaborations and academic exchanges between US institutions and Chinese entities. * The waiver provision allows for flexibility in implementing the restrictions, but may also create uncertainty for affected institutions.

**Fiscal Impact:**

This bill does not provide specific funding amounts or budget allocations. However, it may have indirect fiscal implications by restricting DHS funds to certain institutions of higher education.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm gonna break down this appropriations bill for ya, bro.

So, HR 881 is all about restrictin' DHS funding to institutions of higher education that have ties with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern, man. It's like, the government wants to make sure these schools aren't gettin' too cozy with China, you know?

Now, let's dive into the deets:

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill doesn't specify a total funding amount, bro. It's more about restrictin' existing funds from goin' to certain institutions.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** This bill is all about DHS, dude. Specifically, it's about restrictin' funds to institutions of higher education that have relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** There aren't any notable increases or decreases mentioned in the bill, bro. It's more about changin' the rules for how DHS funds are allocated.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** This is where it gets interesting, dude. The bill includes a bunch of definitions and restrictions on what constitutes a "Chinese entity of concern." It also sets up a waiver process for institutions that want to keep their relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill doesn't mention any specific fiscal impact or deficit implications, bro. But it's worth notin' that restrictin' DHS funds to certain institutions could have some indirect effects on the budget.

In summary, this bill is all about keepin' an eye on China's influence in American higher education, man. It's like, the government wants to make sure these schools aren't compromisin' national security or gettin' too cozy with Chinese entities of concern. The bill sets up some strict rules and restrictions, but also includes a waiver process for institutions that want to keep their relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 881, bro. Hope you found it enlightenin', dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Analysis of HR 881: DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act**

This appropriations bill, HR 881, is a thinly veiled attempt by lawmakers to restrict the influence of China's Confucius Institutes on American universities. While the bill's sponsors claim it's about national security, I've seen enough backroom deals to know that this is really about appeasing special interest groups and donors.

**Funding Breakdown:**

The total funding amount for this bill isn't explicitly stated, but it's likely a drop in the bucket compared to the overall DHS budget. The real question is where these funds will be allocated and what programs or agencies will benefit from them.

**Key Programs and Agencies:**

* Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - The primary beneficiary of this bill, with funding restrictions placed on institutions of higher education that have relationships with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern. * Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) - Involved in the waiver process for institutions seeking exemptions from these funding restrictions.

**Notable Increases or Decreases:**

There's no clear indication of significant increases or decreases in funding, but this bill may lead to a shift in resources within DHS. Expect more funds to be allocated towards monitoring and enforcement activities related to Confucius Institutes and Chinese entities of concern.

**Riders and Policy Provisions:**

The real meat of this bill lies in its policy provisions, which aim to restrict the influence of China's Confucius Institutes on American universities. These restrictions include:

* Terminating relationships between institutions of higher education and Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern * Implementing robust safeguards and enforcement protocols to monitor these relationships * Waiver process for institutions seeking exemptions from funding restrictions

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:**

The fiscal impact of this bill is likely minimal, as it primarily focuses on policy changes rather than significant funding increases. However, the waiver process and increased monitoring activities may lead to some additional costs.

**Monied Interests:**

This bill has all the hallmarks of a special interest-driven initiative. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S.-China Business Council have been vocal about their concerns regarding China's influence on American universities. It's likely that these groups, along with other industry lobby organizations, have contributed to the campaign coffers of bill sponsors.

**Committee Capture:**

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a history of being influenced by special interest groups, particularly those related to national security and defense industries. Expect this committee to be sympathetic to the interests of DHS contractors and other stakeholders who benefit from increased funding for monitoring and enforcement activities.

In conclusion, HR 881 is a bill that's more about politics than policy. While it may have some minor implications for national security, its primary purpose is to appease special interest groups and donors who are concerned about China's influence on American universities

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$101,135

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,600

Committees

Individuals

$93,535

No PAC contributions found

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

WILSON, CELIA R

4 transactions

$22,400

PUDWILL, JAMES

2 transactions

$13,200

GELBMAN, JOEL

2 transactions

$13,200

DIMEMMO, COLETTE

1 transaction

$6,600

AUSTIN, RUTH

2 transactions

$6,600

WILSON, WORD B

1 transaction

$5,000

O'BRIEN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,435

WIDENER, BROCK

1 transaction

$3,300

POOL, VALRIE S

1 transaction

$3,300

KAMON, KENNETH

1 transaction

$3,300

ZALIK, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

JENNINGS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

HIDUKE, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]

ID: G000597

Top Contributors

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationPEARL, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2023

DUIT, JAMES

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

DUIT, PAMELA

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK ENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

RICKETTS, MARLENE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

LEACH, HOWARD

SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE INVESTOR

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

FEINSTEIN, LEONARD

BED BATH AND BEYOND • CHAIRMAN

IndividualJERICHO, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BANKE, BARBARA R.

JACKSON FAMILY WINES • OWNER

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

SMITH, HOLLY

SHOOK HARDY BACON LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

ID: E000300

Top Contributors

WRIGHT, ELIZABETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Jun 29, 2024

WOODWARD, JOHN

SPIERER WOODWARD • ATTORNEY

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$6,600

Sep 19, 2023

BERGSTROM, ROBERT

BT CONSTRUCTION • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualFORT LUPTON, CO

$6,600

Oct 13, 2024

ERICKSON, GARY

EXECUTIVE CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualCOLORADO SPRINGS, CO

$6,600

Oct 15, 2024

HASELDEN, BYRON

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

HASELDEN, EDDIE

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

HASELDEN, MIKE

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CO-CHAIRMAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

WAGNER, BRUCE

WAGNER EQUIPMENT • PRES

IndividualLITTLETON, CO

$5,000

Sep 20, 2024

DUKE, D. A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 9, 2024

MCDONALD, BRUCE

MCDONALD INSURANCE GROUP • OWNER

IndividualLITTLETON, CO

$3,868

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

ID: S001220

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 15, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Jun 30, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$1,000

Sep 29, 2023

JOHN PLUNK ATTORNEY PC

OrganizationATHENS, AL

$1,000

Nov 18, 2024

LEE, ARNOLD

SESI • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA ROSA BEACH, FL

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

HINCHMAN, ROBERT

IGNITE • CEO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

LIPTON, LEE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLAKE WORTH, FL

$5,000

Apr 19, 2023

BENTLEY, PHILIP W. III

BENTLEY BUICK GMC CADILLAC • PRESIDENT

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$5,000

Sep 7, 2023

Rep. Luttrell, Morgan [R-TX-8]

ID: L000603

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

TIGUA INDIAN RES.-YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$3,300

Jun 20, 2023

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationWOODVILLE, TX

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

TIGUA INDIAN RES.-YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$2,500

Sep 20, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO CO-CIO PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

STEDMAN, STUART

STEDMAN WEST INTERESTS INC. • INVESTOR/PRESIDENT

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Jun 22, 2023

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

ERICKSON, MARILYN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPOWELL, TN

$6,600

Jul 6, 2024

Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

ID: J000302

Top Contributors

SPELL, JOE

TIDES MEDICAL • CEO

IndividualLAFAYETTE, LA

$3,500

Nov 4, 2024

SPELL, JOE

TIDES MEDICAL • CEO

IndividualLAFAYETTE, LA

$3,500

Nov 4, 2024

EDATTEL, PAUL

TODD STRATEGY GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualFALLS CHURCH, VA

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

KIMBELL, JEFFREY

SELF-EMPLOYED • HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Feb 13, 2024

SHOAP, VICKI

IndividualLURGAN, PA

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

WALKER, KENT

GOOGLE LLC • PRESIDENT, GLOBAL AFFAIRS

IndividualMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA

$3,300

Mar 23, 2024

ALAM, MURAD

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Mar 7, 2023

EDATTEL, PAUL

TODD STRATEGY LLC • CONSULTANT

IndividualFALLS CHURCH, VA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

KIMBELL, JEFFREY

SELF-EMPLOYED • HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Feb 23, 2023

RAYDER, MARK

ALSTON BIRD, LLP • SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR

IndividualALEXANDRIA, VA

$3,300

Mar 20, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 56 nodes and 38 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $156,335

Top Donors - Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b) restricts institutions of higher education with relationships to Confucius Institutes or Chinese entities of concern from receiving Department of Homeland Security funds, which could impact for-profit education institutions.

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 the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restricting DHS funding to universities with ties to Chinese entities like Confucius Institutes, which aligns with Project 2025's broader concern about Chinese influence and national security threats, though it does not directly address CFIUS reform, greenfield investments, or Treasury-led financial warfare initiatives outlined in the policy."

Key themes:China threatnational securityforeign influenceinvestment screeningacademic security

— 703 — Department of the Treasury l The U.S. should also examine increasing or decreasing its ownership levels in these institutions in order to achieve maximum leverage. CHINA AND OTHER GEOPOLITICAL THREATS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should realign its priorities to meet the United States’ current foreign policy threats, especially from China. On October 20, 2022, the Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, adopted the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines50 on the committee’s national security risk mitigation requirements. However, there are no clear rules that guide CFIUS on mitigation monitoring, nor is there a published penalty sched- ule to standardize accountability when CFIUS pursues a civil money penalty for violators. In addition, Treasury—as chair of the committee—runs an opaque pro- cess that biases committee procedure toward corporate interests and away from national security interests. Finally, the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend over greenfield investments that Chinese state-owned enterprises have historically pursued in the United States, which leaves America vulnerable to an instrument of Chinese economic statecraft. Given these issues, the next steps for CFIUS should be to develop a more coherent—and transparent—mitigation monitoring program to complement the enforcement guidelines, give CFIUS agencies in charge of national security con- cerns an equal voice at the table, and petition Congress to amend the law to cover Chinese greenfield investments. CFIUS should publish a penalty schedule for violations of CFIUS reporting and mitigation requirements. Publishing a penalty schedule for CFIUS violations will reduce the discretion of the committee to waive penalties or impose mere “wrist slap” costs on violators of the law. Additionally, a standardized penalty schedule would likely increase the deterrence of CFIUS enforcement by reducing the per- ception among parties to covered transactions that they can avoid enforcement by the committee or secure special exceptions based on appeals to the commit- tee’s discretion. As a legal matter—and in application by CFIUS—mitigation monitoring has developed as the Wild West. There are no clear rules that guide the entire com- mittee on mitigation monitoring, nor is there the same level of oversight or accountability within and among the agencies as applies when CFIUS reviews a transaction or when it pursues a civil money penalty. Indeed, it is a credit to transaction parties and the professionalism of the governmental officials and con- tractors who conduct mitigation monitoring on behalf of the government that, by and large, mitigation monitoring has worked adequately during the last several decades. But dependency on the personality and capabilities of individuals creates unnecessary risk both for CFIUS and for transaction parties. — 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis.

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy aim to counter China-related national security threats by imposing oversight and restrictions on foreign ties, but the bill targets DHS funding to universities while the policy focuses on CFIUS reform and Treasury oversight of foreign investment."

Key themes:China influencenational security oversightrestrictions on foreign entitiestransparency/accountabilitymitigation monitoring

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's concern about foreign influence in U.S. higher education, particularly regarding Confucius Institutes and Chinese entities, reflecting shared goals of safeguarding academic integrity and national security. However, the bill focuses on DHS funding restrictions rather than Department of Education-specific reforms like HEA amendments or Title VI funding changes outlined in the policy."

Key themes:foreign influence in educationConfucius Institutesnational security oversightinstitutional accountabilityfederal funding conditions

— 356 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Investigate postsecondary institutions that fail to honor their Section 117 obligations and make appropriate referrals to DOJ. l Work with Congress to amend the HEA to tie the HEA’s foreign source reporting requirements to an institution's ability to receive federal financial assistance, particularly participation in programs funded under Titles IV and VI of the HEA. Allowing Competency-Based Education to Flourish Competency-based education is a promising approach that could provide a high-quality and affordable education to many students. Since the credit hour, which measures the time in the classroom, is inappropriate for such programs, the direct assessment method was introduced to allow competen- cy-based programs to participate in the federal financial aid programs. However, overregulation has hampered the usage of direct assessment, with the lead- ing competency-based university choosing to instead convert their courses into credit hours for compliance purposes. One of the leading obstacles is the requirement that courses include “regular and substantive” interaction between faculty and students. l New regulations should clarify the definition and requirements of regular and substantive interaction for competency-based education, as well as for online programs. Reforming “Area Studies” Funding l Congress should wind down so-called “area studies” programs at universities (Title VI of the HEA), which, although intended to serve American interests, sometimes fund programs that run counter to those interests. l In the meantime, the next Administration should promulgate a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics and require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests. — 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restricting DHS funding to universities with ties to Chinese entities like Confucius Institutes, which aligns with Project 2025's broader concern about Chinese influence and national security risks, particularly in academic and technological spheres. While the bill does not directly address CFIUS, greenfield investments, or Treasury-led financial warfare initiatives, it shares the overarching theme of mitigating Chinese state-linked influence in U.S. institutions."

Key themes:China influencenational securityacademic securitytechnology transferforeign entity oversight

— 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis. — 705 — Department of the Treasury Treasury must also seriously evaluate U.S. foreign direct investment in China. Particular focus should be paid to investments in CCP or other state-owned enter- prises, investments that result in technology transfers from the U.S. to China, investments that enhance China’s military capacity, and investments that pose risks to critical U.S. supply chains by sourcing critical components or feedstocks in China. An enhanced reporting system is warranted, and greater legal authority and restrictions are appropriate. IMPROVED FINANCIAL REGULATION One of the priorities of the incoming Administration should be to restructure the outdated and cumbersome financial regulatory system in order to promote financial innovation, improve regulator efficiency, reduce regulatory costs, close regulatory gaps, eliminate regulatory arbitrage, provide clear statutory authority, consolidate regulatory agencies or reduce the size of government, and increase transparency. Merging Functions. The new Administration should establish a more stream- lined bank and supervision by supporting legislation to merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve’s non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions. U.S. banking law remains stuck in the 1930s regarding which functions finan- cial companies should perform. It was never a good idea either to restrict banks to taking deposits and making loans or to prevent investment banks from taking deposits. Doing so makes markets less stable. All financial intermediaries function by pooling the financial resources of those who want to save and funneling them to others that are willing and able to pay for additional funds. This underlying principle should guide U.S. financial laws. Policymakers should create new charters for financial firms that eliminate activ- ity restrictions and reduce regulations in return for straightforward higher equity or risk-retention standards. Ultimately, these charters would replace government regulation with competition and market discipline, thereby lowering the risk of future financial crises and improving the ability of individuals to create wealth. Dodd–Frank Revisions. Congress should repeal Title I, Title II, and Title VIII of the Dodd–Frank Act.52 Title I of Dodd–Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a kind of super-regulator tasked with identifying so-called systemically important financial institutions and singling them out for especially stringent regulation. The problem, of course, is that this process effectively iden- tifies those firms regulators believe are “too big to fail.”53 Title VIII of Dodd–Frank gives the FSOC similarly broad special-designation authority for specialized financial companies known as financial market utilities.54 Title II of Dodd–Frank established the controversial provision known as orderly

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses DHS funding restrictions tied to foreign influence on colleges, whereas the Project 2025 education section focuses on school choice, accreditation reform, and reducing federal oversight; they share only a tangential connection through higher education funding conditions."

Key themes:higher educationfederal funding conditionsinstitutional accountability

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Pfluger, August

I&A Mission Reorientation Act of 2026

119/hr/7443

EMRTAI Authorization Act of 2026

119/hr/9616

Protecting American Energy Production Act

119/hr/26

Back to All Bills