A bill for an act providing penalties for certain nonimmigrant visa holders attending or employed by certain institutions of higher education who express support for certain terrorist activities or organizations and including effective date provisions.(See HF 576.)
HF 115 would require Iowa institutions of higher education, including regents institutions and certain accredited private colleges, to adopt and enforce policies aimed at nonimmigrant visa holders who publicly support terrorist activity or terrorist organizations. The bill defines covered visa categories broadly to include F-1, M-1, and J-1 visas, and ties the prohibited conduct to federal definitions of “terrorist activity” and “terrorist organization.”
Under the bill, a covered student, faculty member, or staff member who is found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have violated the policy would face escalating consequences: a first finding would require at least a one-year suspension for students or termination for employees, and a second finding would require permanent expulsion or termination. Institutions would also have to update federal student exchange visitor records to reflect the person’s removal from enrollment or employment, and they would be barred from allowing a person previously disciplined under the bill to transfer in or be employed there. The attorney general would be responsible for enforcement, with authority to investigate, compel records, and seek a writ of mandamus; non-regents private institutions found in violation could lose eligibility for state tuition grant funding.
The bill would add a new chapter to Iowa Code and amend the definition of “accredited private institution” in the state’s tuition-grant law to require compliance with the new chapter as a condition of that status. It would therefore affect both public universities governed by the state board of regents and private colleges participating in state tuition grant programs. The bill’s effective date is December 31, 2025.
The available vote history suggests the bill had some support in the House Committee on Higher Education, where it advanced on an 8-3 vote. The committee record provided does not include transcript discussion, so the broader sentiment can only be inferred from the vote and the bill’s movement: it appears to have had enough support to advance, but not unanimous backing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s scope and constitutional or policy implications. Critics may object to conditioning enrollment, employment, and state funding on political or ideological expression by visa holders, as well as to the use of institutional investigations and attorney general enforcement. Supporters likely view the measure as a national-security response aimed at preventing support for terrorism on college campuses, especially in the context of ongoing foreign conflicts. The bill’s focus on nonimmigrant visa holders and its speech-based restrictions make it especially sensitive and potentially controversial.
HF 115 would create a new chapter in Iowa law governing higher education institutions’ treatment of nonimmigrant visa holders who express support for terrorist activity or organizations. It would require institutions to adopt specific disciplinary policies, mandate reporting changes in federal visa-tracking systems, and authorize state enforcement by the attorney general. It would also amend Iowa’s tuition-grant eligibility rules so that certain private colleges must comply with the new chapter to remain eligible for state aid, and noncompliant private institutions could lose tuition-grant funding after a court finding of violation.
The bill appears to have had cautious but real support in committee, advancing 8-3 in the House Committee on Higher Education. That vote suggests a majority saw the proposal as worthy of further consideration, while a meaningful minority opposed it. Because no transcript is provided, there is no direct record of debate, but the committee outcome indicates the bill was not broadly unanimous and likely drew concern even among those willing to advance it.
The most notable contention is the bill’s restriction on speech and association by nonimmigrant visa holders at colleges and universities. Opponents are likely to question whether the bill targets protected expression, whether it is overbroad in defining support for terrorist activity, and whether it places institutions in the role of policing political speech. Supporters likely argue that the bill is necessary to prevent advocacy for terrorism and to protect campus safety and national security. Additional controversy may arise from the attorney general’s investigative powers, the mandatory use of federal immigration records, and the loss of tuition-grant eligibility for private institutions found in violation.