According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2312 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The bill establishes the Texas Advisory Committee on Geopolitical Conflict, but the associated costs are projected to be minimal and manageable within the existing resources of the involved state agencies.

The fiscal analysis assumes that any expenditures incurred by the creation and operation of the advisory committee—such as staff coordination, administrative support, or logistical needs—can be absorbed by current appropriations and staffing levels within the Office of the Governor and other involved agencies. This includes entities like the Department of Public Safety, the Health and Human Services Commission, the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and the Department of State Health Services.

Furthermore, the bill is not anticipated to impose any significant financial burden on local governments. Its scope remains primarily advisory and strategic rather than regulatory or enforcement-driven, which helps to limit fiscal obligations across state and local entities. This restrained fiscal footprint is likely due in part to the scaled-back responsibilities in the substitute version compared to the originally filed bill.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2312, unless amended as described below, based on concerns related to transparency, government overreach, and alignment with core liberty principles. While the bill aims to prepare Texas for the risks posed by global geopolitical instability, its structure creates a powerful advisory body with investigatory authority, confidentiality protections, and minimal oversight, all of which raise red flags from a limited government and civil liberty standpoint.

The bill analysis underscores the rationale behind the legislation: that foreign adversaries are actively probing U.S. infrastructure and that Texas must be ready for the fallout of any major global conflict, including disruptions to supply chains and potential infrastructure sabotage. This context explains the bill’s intent—to ensure that Texas can respond swiftly and securely in crisis scenarios. However, the legislation goes beyond strategic planning. It grants the advisory committee subpoena power, shields its proceedings from open meetings laws, and allows its findings to remain confidential unless selectively disclosed by the governor. These elements risk creating an opaque body operating without the usual checks associated with public institutions.

The lack of meaningful legislative oversight or mechanisms for public transparency contradicts the principles of limited government. Furthermore, while the bill does not directly impose regulation on private enterprise, its recommendations could strongly influence procurement policy and the treatment of foreign-affiliated businesses. These effects could distort the market and lead to consequences based on non-transparent risk assessments. Therefore, while the objective of securing the state is legitimate, the means proposed in SB 2312 are not appropriately balanced with constitutional and liberty-respecting safeguards.

In summary, SB 2312 should be amended to include stronger transparency provisions, clearer limits on its investigatory reach, and legislative oversight to ensure accountability. Until such safeguards are incorporated, the appropriate position is to oppose the bill in its current form.

Suggested Amendments:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Subject the advisory committee to the Texas Open Meetings Act (Chapter 551, Government Code), with narrowly defined exceptions for national security-sensitive discussions. Remove or significantly limit the exemption from the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552, Government Code). Confidentiality should be permitted only where disclosure would pose a clear, demonstrable threat to state or national security, and this determination should require independent review or a majority vote of the committee.
2. Legislative Oversight: Add a requirement for annual testimony before a legislative committee (e.g., House or Senate State Affairs) to report findings, activities, and policy recommendations in a public setting. Establish a legislative review mechanism prior to the issuance of any major policy recommendations or classified risk assessments that could influence state procurement or critical infrastructure policies.
3. Limit Investigatory Powers: Eliminate the committee’s subpoena authority or condition its use on approval by the Office of the Attorney General or a majority vote of the committee with notice to legislative leaders. Restrict investigatory powers to information available through existing agencies or public sources unless specific cooperation is granted voluntarily or through interagency agreements.
4. Sunset Review and Evaluation: Retain the September 1, 2029, expiration date but require a full performance review by the Sunset Advisory Commission or a legislative oversight committee no later than one year prior. Require justification for continuation based on measurable outcomes, including policy impact and interagency coordination effectiveness.
5. Procurement and Market Neutrality: Prohibit the committee from making binding or enforceable recommendations that would restrict procurement decisions, blacklist vendors, or influence supply chain regulations without legislative action. Add language requiring economic impact assessments for any policy recommendations that could affect state purchasing or private sector operations.
6. Membership Safeguards: Add conflict-of-interest provisions for advisory committee members and external consultants, including disclosure of any financial ties to vendors or government contractors in relevant industries. Require a publicly accessible directory of committee members, their qualifications, and appointing authorities.

• Individual Liberty: The bill allows the advisory committee to operate outside of Texas’ open government laws, with broad confidentiality over its findings and investigatory powers that include issuing subpoenas. This undermines transparency and risks infringing on the public’s right to know how state-level intelligence assessments and policy recommendations are formed. Furthermore, the lack of clear procedural protections could chill speech or association if individuals or businesses fear being targeted in state-level security reviews without due process.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill emphasizes collective security, it centralizes planning authority within a government-appointed committee rather than encouraging distributed, community-based resilience or private-sector solutions. It does not interfere directly with individuals' autonomy, but it does not affirm or strengthen the principle that Texans should take responsibility for local preparedness or supply chain independence either.
• Free Enterprise: The committee is tasked with reviewing and reporting on “critical procurements” and foreign-sourced goods, including pharmaceuticals and industrial components. Although it lacks formal regulatory power, its findings and recommendations could heavily influence procurement decisions or legislative priorities, creating de facto restrictions on market access for certain companies. Without transparency or economic impact analysis, this introduces the risk of politicizing commerce and disrupting free competition.
• Private Property Rights: There are no direct takings or property seizures authorized in the bill. However, the investigation of “critical infrastructure” could implicate private facilities (e.g., utilities, transportation networks, data centers) in strategic planning without clearly defining the limits of engagement or property owner consent. If the committee’s findings later inform restrictive policy or regulation, property rights could be indirectly affected without due compensation or legislative debate.
• Limited Government: This is the most significantly affected principle. The bill creates a new standing committee with investigative authority, the ability to subpoena, broad discretion over what it studies, and no strong legislative oversight or sunset review requirements. It is exempt from public transparency laws and may influence substantial areas of public policy. Without strong checks and balances, this committee represents a meaningful expansion of government reach without sufficient constraints.

• HB 118 (Similar To)