Texas House Bill HB 4762

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/13/25
• Out of House Committee: 4/21/25

Caption

Relating to establishing the Higher Education Research Security Council.

Summary

HB 4762 would create the Higher Education Research Security Council within the Education Code to coordinate research-security efforts at Texas tier one research institutions. The bill defines tier one institutions by reference to the 2025 Carnegie R1 classification and makes the council responsible for identifying best practices, developing a model research security policy for adoption by those institutions, creating an accreditation process for security excellence, promoting an annual Texas A&M academic security seminar, and developing annual training for research security officers. The council would be composed of research security officers designated under existing law and, if they choose to participate, officers from private or independent institutions of higher education. It would meet at least quarterly, submit annual reports to the governor, the attorney general, and legislative higher-education committees, and those reports would be confidential and exempt from public disclosure. The bill also authorizes the council to accept gifts, grants, and donations, but bars funding from entities tied to federal contract prohibitions, Chinese military companies, foreign adversary governments, or bodies controlled by those governments.

Impact

The bill adds a new Section 51.957 to the Texas Education Code and expands the state’s higher education research-security framework by formalizing a statewide council focused on protecting intellectual property and limiting foreign espionage and interference. It would affect tier one research institutions directly by encouraging or requiring adoption of a council-developed research security policy and by creating an accreditation structure tied to security practices. It also imposes confidentiality on the council’s annual reports and restricts the sources of outside funding the council may accept.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s subject matter and structure suggest a policy emphasis on research protection, national security, and safeguarding intellectual capital, which are typically framed as institutional and state interests. Its placement on the table subject to call indicates the measure did not advance at that stage, but the record provided does not explain why.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the bill’s foreign-entity restrictions, the confidentiality of the council’s reports, and the extent to which a state council would influence research governance at universities. Institutions may differ on whether the proposed policy and accreditation framework should be mandatory or advisory in practice, and private or independent institutions are given an opt-in role rather than automatic inclusion. Another possible issue is the reliance on a Texas A&M-affiliated seminar and the use of state-level oversight for matters that some may view as already addressed by federal research-security rules.