According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2117 are projected to result in a negative net impact of approximately $4.78 million to General Revenue-related funds over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill does not directly appropriate funds, but it provides the legal basis for future appropriations to support its implementation. The bulk of the anticipated costs are associated with the establishment and operation of the Texas Committee on Foreign Investment and the related investigative and enforcement duties assigned to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

To carry out these duties, the OAG would require the addition of 14 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. These would include a combination of senior and mid-level Assistant Attorneys General and Legal Assistants. The estimated cost for salaries, benefits, travel, and operating expenses tied to these personnel is $2.44 million in FY 2026 and $2.33 million annually from FY 2027 onward. These recurring costs reflect the anticipated workload from reviewing foreign transactions, conducting investigations, and enforcing mitigation agreements or penalties for noncompliance.

Other state agencies involved in the Committee’s work, such as the Governor's Office, General Land Office, Department of Public Safety, and Public Utility Commission, are not expected to incur significant additional costs and would likely absorb any minor fiscal responsibilities within their current budgets. While the bill does allow for the recovery of civil penalties (up to $50,000 per violation) and legal costs, the Legislative Budget Board notes that the amount and timing of revenue from such penalties cannot be reliably estimated at this time, leaving the near-term fiscal impact effectively as a net cost.

In terms of technology and local government impact, the bill is expected to have no significant technological requirements and no material fiscal effect on local governments. Overall, while the bill introduces a moderate ongoing cost to the state, it is framed as a preventive measure to safeguard Texas's critical assets from foreign control and influence, potentially avoiding larger long-term economic or security risks.

SB 2117 presents a well-structured, strategic approach to safeguarding Texas from potential risks associated with foreign investment in critical infrastructure, strategic industries, and sensitive data. The bill creates the Texas Committee on Foreign Investment, a new state-level oversight body, and outlines a process through which foreign transactions, specifically those involving entities from countries without U.S. trade agreements, can be reviewed, investigated, and, if necessary, mitigated through formal agreements. The bill reflects an important effort to close security gaps that are not fully addressed by federal law, while maintaining Texas’s strong investment climate and sovereignty.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2117 to align with core liberty principles, especially private property rights, national sovereignty, and limited government intervention targeted at high-risk actors. It establishes a transparent, rules-based process that includes public posting of criteria, limited applicability to high-risk entities, and enforcement through civil penalties. The bill ensures confidentiality during reviews, mitigating business privacy concerns, and limits regulatory burdens to only those transactions that truly pose a potential risk to public safety or state security interests.

However, the bill is not without its liberty-impacting tradeoffs. It expands the scope of government through the formation of a new state entity and requires the hiring of 14 full-time employees at the Office of the Attorney General to manage review and enforcement. This results in a projected taxpayer burden of $4.78 million over the initial biennium, with no guaranteed revenue offset despite the civil penalty provisions. Additionally, it introduces new regulatory requirements for businesses or individuals engaging in transactions with foreign entities, including mandatory advance notifications, potential delays due to investigations, and compliance with mitigation agreements.

Nonetheless, these expansions are narrowly tailored and respond to a clearly articulated state interest: preventing foreign adversaries from gaining control of sensitive Texas assets. The bill strikes a reasonable balance between security and economic freedom, and its limited regulatory scope, combined with exemption authority and transparency mechanisms, helps preserve the spirit of free enterprise.

• Individual Liberty: The bill doesn’t restrict personal freedoms for everyday Texans. It focuses on large business transactions involving foreign entities that could impact public safety or security. By protecting sensitive personal data and state infrastructure, it can be seen as defending individual liberty from foreign coercion or surveillance.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill doesn’t directly address personal behavior, it requires businesses dealing with certain foreign entities to act responsibly, disclose their deals, and follow rules meant to protect the public. It reinforces the idea that those who operate in high-risk spaces have a duty to protect the broader community.
• Free Enterprise: The bill adds regulatory steps for certain business transactions, which can slow down or complicate deals involving foreign investment. Critics may see this as a hindrance to economic freedom, especially in global markets. However, supporters argue that this limited oversight helps protect the overall business environment by keeping bad actors out of key industries.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill regulates some property transactions, it’s designed to prevent foreign control of Texas land or infrastructure that could be used against the public interest. It doesn’t ban foreign ownership but adds review steps to protect property and infrastructure from misuse. This is consistent with defending Texans’ long-term property interests.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill receives the most scrutiny. It creates a new government body, hires 14 new staff, and costs taxpayers $4.78 million in the first two years. While it’s targeted and temporary in nature, it does expand the size and role of government, which may concern those who believe strongly in minimal state intervention.

• HB 5007 (Same As)