New Act Makes Being Subject to Foreign Spying Laws Grounds for Deportation and Visa Denial

The “Preventing Intelligence Gathering from Foreign Adversaries Act” is a short, sharp piece of legislation aimed squarely at tightening up U.S. immigration law to counter foreign intelligence threats. It doesn't target spies who have actually done something wrong; it targets anyone who could be forced to spy, simply because of the laws in their home country.

The New Rule: Being Compelled Is Enough

This bill adds a major new reason for denying entry (inadmissibility) or kicking someone out (deportability) of the United States. Under SEC. 2, if you are a non-citizen and you are “subject to a law in any foreign country that forces you to help out with that country’s intelligence gathering or spying operations,” you are now inadmissible or deportable. Think about that for a second: you don't actually have to have passed state secrets or even intend to cooperate. The mere existence of a foreign law that legally compels you to assist their intelligence operations—whether through access, cooperation, or support—is now enough to bar you from the country, or remove you if you’re already here.

The Real-World Impact: Who Gets Caught in the Net?

This provision is designed to keep out or remove potential foreign intelligence assets, which sounds like a clear national security win. However, the language is broad, and that’s where the rubber meets the road for everyday people. The bill uses the phrase “subject to a law.” In many countries, particularly those with authoritarian governments, national security laws are written so broadly that all citizens are technically “subject to” requirements to cooperate with intelligence agencies, even if they are just a software developer, a student, or a small business owner.

For example, imagine a highly skilled engineer from a country with mandatory, sweeping state security laws. That engineer might be applying for a specialized visa to work in the U.S. under Section 212(a)(3)(H). Even if they have no intention of spying and have never been asked to, the U.S. government could potentially deny their visa simply because their home country’s law could compel them to cooperate. This shifts the focus from an individual’s actions and intent to the legal framework of their home country, creating a significant hurdle for immigrants and temporary workers from nations with broad state surveillance or mandatory service requirements.

The Challenge of Enforcement

For the government to enforce this, they will have to prove that a non-citizen is “subject to” such a law. This means U.S. immigration officials will be tasked with interpreting and applying the complex, often opaque, national security and intelligence laws of potentially every country in the world. This is a massive administrative and legal challenge that could lead to inconsistent application or reliance on broad interpretations of foreign statutes. It also raises questions for asylum seekers or refugees who are fleeing the very governments whose compulsory laws are now grounds for their inadmissibility under Section 237(a)(4)(G).

In short, while the goal of the “Preventing Intelligence Gathering from Foreign Adversaries Act” is clearly to bolster counterintelligence efforts, its method—making legal compulsion, rather than actual espionage, the grounds for removal—creates a wide net that could impact many non-citizens who pose no actual threat, simply because of the legal system they were born into.