Intelligence funding ban targets foreign researchers at U.S. labs
H.R. 9660 — No Hostile ONLOOKERS Act · Filed by Claudia Tenney (R-NY) · Introduced Jul 13, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits the intelligence community from funding research, development, or technical support at Department of Energy National Laboratories if those labs allow personnel or visitors from designated 'countries of risk' to access the lab's premises, information, or technology. The bill includes a waiver mechanism allowing intelligence agency heads to override the ban if they certify the work is not at risk of foreign intelligence collection and submit justification to Congress.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a funding prohibition tied to foreign-national access policies at National Laboratories, framed as a counterintelligence measure. It does not create new security requirements but rather weaponizes funding as enforcement of existing or desired access controls.
What the text implies
- The bill's definition of 'countries of risk' is delegated to the 2025 Intelligence Authorization Act (Public Law 118–159 and 119–60), meaning Congress is not directly defining which nations trigger the ban—the list is external and may shift without explicit legislative amendment.
- The waiver mechanism allows intelligence agency heads to override the prohibition unilaterally if they certify non-collection risk, creating a de facto opt-out that may render the prohibition symbolic rather than binding in practice.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill addresses a legitimate national security concern—protecting classified research from foreign intelligence collection at federally funded labs—but the mechanism is blunt and may disrupt scientific collaboration and research productivity without clear evidence that the current security framework is inadequate. The waiver provision preserves flexibility but shifts discretionary power to intelligence agency heads with minimal congressional oversight.