The comment letter, submitted by Katharina Phillips on behalf of the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), addresses the Department of Commerce’s recommendations regarding deemed export controls as they pertain to fundamental research at U.S. universities. COGR, representing 160 research-intensive institutions, expresses strong concerns that implementing the Inspector General’s (IG) recommended changes would adversely affect both U.S. economic competitiveness and national security by making American universities less attractive to international researchers and students. The letter argues that the IG’s recommendations are based on misconceptions about the nature of fundamental research and its established regulatory exclusions, and that they fail to recognize the openness essential to the academic research environment. COGR warns that stricter deemed export controls would impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on universities by requiring extensive inventorying, classification, and licensing for potentially thousands of pieces of research equipment and hundreds or thousands of foreign nationals present on campus. These burdens, the letter contends, would not be justified given the lack of evidence that current visa screening and classification procedures are inadequate.
Furthermore, the letter asserts that the IG’s premise of separating research products from processes is flawed; in academic research, using and sharing technology, including instruction on equipment use, is inseparably linked to the creation and dissemination of new knowledge. The letter also cautions against proposals to base license requirements on country of birth, highlighting potential constitutional issues and a lack of logical or empirical basis for such distinctions. COGR urges continued reliance on existing visa and classification systems, clearer regulatory definitions focused on genuinely proprietary information, and sustained dialogue among stakeholders. The organization ultimately calls for a careful cost-benefit analysis before any regulatory changes are made, reiterating the fundamental importance of openness, international collaboration, and appropriately tailored controls to sustaining U.S. research and innovation leadership.
