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.
Ask about Texas SB 1565 vs Florida HB 905 Compared
Answers are drawn from this comparison and the rest of the CASRAI corpus, with a link to every source.
Answers are AI-generated from CASRAI’s own published pages and can be wrong, so check the linked sources before relying on one; your question is logged without personal data — never sold, never used to train a third-party model — to show us what CASRAI is missing, so please do not type personal or confidential details. How we use this
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.
