On March 27, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Deterrent Act. As it awaits a Senate vote, Brown University continues its yearslong fight against this piece of legislation.
The Deterrent Act is purported to improve research security and reduce foreign malign influence on universities. In reality, however, the bill functions as another federal overreach on institutions of higher education rather than an effective measure for upholding academic freedom.
Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, universities are required to disclose foreign donations of $250,000 or more. The Deterrent Act seeks to decrease that gift threshold to $50,000, forcing academic institutions to report all foreign contributions that exceed this new minimum value to the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, any gift of any dollar amount from a “foreign country (or entity) of concern” must also be disclosed. Finally, the act lays out additional guidelines regarding gifts or contracts between individual faculty and staff and foreign sources.
These legislative revisions are ostensibly designed to minimize the influence of foreign political ideologies on American campuses. However, the framework for these disclosures already exists in previous laws, thus duplicating existing interagency efforts.
As expressed by the American Council on Education in a letter to Congress, foreign gift reporting is already mandated under NSPM-33, the CHIPS and Science Act, and numerous National Defense Authorization Act provisions. It is superfluous to increase administrative burden—especially when the bureaucracy of the Department of Education is already being gutted.
Rather than inventing a new mechanism for reducing ideological influence, the Deterrent Act functions as a demonstration of strength for President Trump—another method to make universities submit to his will.
The act, crafted by House Republicans and receiving bipartisan support, may not have been created solely to serve Trump’s higher education agenda. Still, its language aligns with the rhetoric of Trump’s subsequent executive order entitled “Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities.”
In practice, if the act passes, it will serve as a tool for the Trump administration to continue tightening its control over academia.
From federal land grants in the 1800s, to work-study programs during the Great Depression, to the GI Bill, the federal government has played a longstanding and crucial role in universities. The ratification of the Higher Education Act in 1965 cemented this relationship, resulting in the federal government’s ongoing financial support through programs such as FAFSA and Pell Grants.
All of this illustrates that an exchange of influence and funds between universities and the federal government is not a new phenomenon. However, in the past year, this relationship has been redefined—demonstrated by significant federal cuts to university research funding and a freeze of grant funding to specific institutions, including Brown.
These events have instituted a new power dynamic between both parties—one in which the president uses federal funding as political leverage.
The Trump administration and advocates claim they are trying to halt ideological influence with the Deterrent Act. Yet, this piece of legislation is just another political ploy to further their own ideological battle.
And despite the nefarious nature of foreign influence the act clearly suggests, Trump pays no heed when it benefits him personally.
Whether it is a portrait from Russian President Vladimir Putin, a jet from Qatar, many golf clubs from Japan, or Russian elites investing nearly $100 million in his buildings, Trump is no stranger to foreign gifts.
Additionally, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Trump or his companies received $13.6 million from foreign payments during his first term.
Foreign gifts infiltrate the White House, so why is higher education where the line is drawn?
It is true that financial “transparency, accountability, and clarity” are necessary—and oftentimes lacking—at universities. If foreign governments are infiltrating American institutions to further their own political agendas—for example, the U.S.-based researchers arrested for illegally collaborating with China—the alarms of academic independence should sound.
However, this act does not make significant strides toward securing our academic freedom. Instead, it deepens the federal government’s encroachment.
I urge the Brown community to reflect on the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” offered by the federal government last month. Rejecting the compact—a choice largely praised by the Brown community—was a step toward academic integrity and freedom.
These are the steps we must continue to take: steps of autonomy and independence.
Universities rely on external actors to operate, but that does not mean we should be indebted to them. Despite its longstanding history, as a university, we must ensure that no gifts we accept come with strings attached.
The issue isn’t foreign gifts; it is extrinsic influence—both domestic and abroad.
https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/11/berkwits-29-the-deterrent-act-is-more-about-power-than-transparency
