Direct comparison
Texas SB 1565 vs Florida HB 905 Compared
How Texas SB 1565 and Florida HB 905 differ, and what the state research-security patchwork means on top of federal NSPM-33/Section 117 rules.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Texas SB 1565 vs Florida HB 905 Compared
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Texas SB 1565, Florida HB 905 compare side by side?
The table below compares Texas SB 1565, Florida HB 905 across 8 procurement-relevant dimensions, from formal scope through primary compliance burden.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Texas SB 1565 | Florida HB 905 |
|---|---|---|
| Formal scope | Research-security governance at public institutions of higher education | Foreign-interference restrictions across state agencies, political subdivisions, and publicly funded schools |
| Core mechanism | Mandates a written policy framework plus a designated research security officer | Prohibits specified agreements/grants and terminates existing covered agreements with listed countries |
| Statutory country list | None in the bill text | Yes: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Maduro-regime Venezuela, Syria |
| Effective date | September 1, 2023 | July 1, 2026 |
| Personnel/training requirement | Yes, RSO must attend the annual Texas A&M academic security seminar | None specified for individual personnel |
| Effect on existing agreements | No automatic termination; institutions build a review process going forward | Terminates qualifying existing agreements (e.g. sister-city, linkage-institute) at the effective date |
| Relationship to NSPM-33/Section 117 | Complementary; federal sources still supply the substantive risk list | Additive; creates an independent state prohibition, including for non-federally-funded agreements |
| Primary compliance burden | Documenting a governance program and appointing qualified staff | Auditing existing agreements/grants against the statutory country list |
Common questions
Common questions about Texas SB 1565 vs Florida HB 905
Does complying with NSPM-33 automatically satisfy Texas SB 1565 or Florida HB 905?
+
No. NSPM-33 compliance is necessary but not sufficient for either state law. SB 1565 separately requires a written institutional policy framework and a designated, trained research security officer. HB 905 separately prohibits specific agreements and grants, including ones that are not federally funded at all.
Do Texas SB 1565 and Florida HB 905 use the same list of countries of concern?
+
No. SB 1565 does not enumerate a country list in its text; institutions typically rely on federal sources for that. HB 905 defines its own fixed statutory list: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and Syria.
Do these laws apply to private universities?
+
Both target public institutions and public entities. Private institutions should still confirm applicability with counsel, since funding relationships with public entities can bring private-institution activity into scope.
Are more states expected to pass similar laws?
+
State-level research-security and foreign-influence legislation has expanded steadily since Texas SB 1565's 2023 passage, with additional states introducing comparable bills covering research security, foreign-gift transparency, or categorical restrictions on agreements with specific countries. Institutions operating across multiple states should expect this patchwork to keep growing rather than converge on a single model, and should track state legislative sessions the way they already track federal rulemaking.
