Relating to prohibiting the investment of state money in certain countries and in certain private business entities in those countries.
HB 4900 expands Texas’s state investment restrictions to cover additional foreign countries and companies tied to those countries. The bill adds a new category of “country of concern,” defined to include China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and any other country later designated by the governor after consultation with public safety and homeland security officials. It then prohibits investing entities from acquiring securities issued by those countries or by entities owned, controlled by, or subject to their jurisdiction, and bars investments or deposits in banks headquartered in a country of concern.
The bill also broadens the definition of “scrutinized company” to include companies connected to a country of concern through organization, principal place of business, control, ownership, or majority ownership by citizens of that country. The comptroller must maintain a categorized list of scrutinized companies, and affected companies would receive notice and a 90-day opportunity to change their structure or location before divestment requirements apply. The bill preserves an exception for companies expressly excluded from relevant federal sanctions regimes, and it directs the comptroller to add the new country-of-concern companies to the list by January 1, 2026, with the act taking effect September 1, 2025.
HB 4900 would amend Chapter 2270 of the Government Code, expanding Texas divestment and investment-prohibition rules beyond the existing Sudan/Iran-related framework to a broader set of countries of concern and related private entities. It would give the governor authority to designate additional countries, require the comptroller to track more categories of scrutinized companies, and impose notice-and-divestment procedures for companies tied to those countries. State investing entities, including those managing public funds, would be restricted from certain securities, banking relationships, and deposits involving the designated countries and covered companies.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a public-safety and national-security measure, and its referral to the Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans’ Affairs Committee is consistent with that posture. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be presented in a generally protective, restrictive tone rather than a controversial fiscal or regulatory expansion.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the governor’s authority to designate additional countries of concern, the inclusion of countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and the reach of the ownership/control tests used to classify companies as scrutinized. Another likely issue is the practical and economic impact on state investment portfolios and public funds, as well as whether the divestment rules could affect companies with indirect ties to the listed countries. Supporters would likely emphasize security and sanctions alignment, while critics may focus on market effects, administrative burden, and the possibility of overbroad restrictions.