According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal impact of HB 34 cannot be precisely determined at this time. The bill would prohibit the investment of state money in countries of concern such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, as well as in private businesses associated with those countries. The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) and the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) indicated that the financial consequences are uncertain because it is difficult to estimate how divesting from currently held or future investments in those countries would affect overall returns​.

ERS notes that future investment opportunities could be affected if the governor designates additional countries of concern, but it is currently unknown whether such opportunities would have been pursued or how profitable they might have been. Similarly, TRS reports that they cannot reliably forecast the difference in investment returns between existing scrutinized investments and the alternative assets that would replace them.

The Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA), who would be responsible for updating the list of scrutinized companies, anticipates that the administrative costs associated with these new duties could be absorbed within existing resources. Additionally, the Legislative Budget Board notes that the local government fiscal impact is likewise indeterminate at this time.

HB 34 strengthens the financial integrity and security of the State of Texas without expanding government in a meaningful way, increasing the burden on taxpayers, or imposing new regulations on individuals or businesses. HB 34 prohibits state investing entities from acquiring securities or making deposits involving China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or other countries of concern designated by the governor. It also updates the criteria for listing “scrutinized companies” that are subject to investment restrictions, ensuring Texas’s public funds are not tied to foreign adversaries​.

The bill does not grow the size or scope of government beyond a modest extension of the Comptroller's existing list-maintenance responsibilities, which the agency can absorb within current resources. It does not increase the burden on taxpayers, as no new taxes or significant expenditures are created. Importantly, it does not impose a regulatory burden on individuals or private businesses — only on state financial management decisions. Private market actors remain free to conduct business as they choose.

While the fiscal impact is officially indeterminate — because it is uncertain whether investment returns might be affected by divestment actions — the core liberty principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise are respected and even strengthened by HB 34. The bill represents a prudent, limited-government approach to protecting Texas's economic security and sovereignty without creating new costs or regulations. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 34.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not restrict or interfere with the personal freedoms of individuals. It exclusively governs the financial activities of state agencies, leaving private citizens free to invest, purchase, and conduct business with companies or entities from countries of concern without any new restrictions. Thus, individual liberty remains unaffected by this bill.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility at the government level by ensuring that state officials act as careful stewards of public funds. By prohibiting investments tied to adversarial foreign governments, the bill demands greater vigilance and prudence from those managing taxpayer-backed funds. It reinforces the idea that government actors must act responsibly on behalf of the people they serve.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill places limits on state investment activity, it does not regulate private business behavior. Free enterprise remains intact for individuals and companies in Texas; the state simply chooses not to financially support certain foreign-linked entities. However, critics might caution that restricting the investment market for public funds, even if limited, edges toward politicizing market participation.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not impose any new restrictions on the right to buy, sell, own, or control private property. It does not affect private land transactions, business operations, or personal assets. Unlike broader proposals to restrict land ownership from foreign nationals, this bill is narrowly focused on public sector investment choices and leaves private property rights untouched.
• Limited Government: The bill generally aligns with limited government principles by carefully directing how public money is managed without creating new agencies or imposing new taxes. However, it slightly expands the governor’s authority by allowing the unilateral designation of additional "countries of concern," raising a mild concern about executive overreach. Overall, the bill maintains a limited government approach while enhancing the state's financial security.