GYH Authors Assess U.S. State-Level Legislation on Transnational Repression
By Ariel Rawls, Dr. Ted R. Bromund and Grady Vaughan
Two GYH authors – Ariel Rawls, Esq. and Dr. Ted R. Bromund – with co-author Grady Vaughan of the well-known non-governmental organization Freedom House, have published a survey and assessment with guidelines for future legislation of state-level legislation on transnational repression in Just Security.
The authors note that initially, the policy response in the United States to transnational repression occurred entirely at the federal level. Congressional committees have held hearings, federal law enforcement has regularly brought cases against perpetrators, and Congressional offices have introduced bills on transnational repression. But U.S. administrations have evaded the intent of the most significant U.S. legislation, Section 6503 of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, and the United States and other democracies continue to facilitate transnational repression via their immigration and extradition systems by detaining and deporting dissidents.
Over the past several years, U.S. states have begun to consider legislation on the issue. Adhering to due process standards when adjudicating claims for asylum, while essential, will not protect individuals from surveillance, harassment, coercion, or intimidation by foreign regimes or their agents inside the United States. These acts can be addressed at the state level. Indeed, given the federal structure of the United States, leaving every offense to the federal government to criminalize is neither sensible nor safe.
The authors survey the current legislation, noting that Texas became the first state to pass legislation to counter transnational repression in May 2025, followed shortly by Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee having adopted similar legislation over the following year. Recent legislation in Utah includes an emphasis on transnational repression in higher education.
Not all legislation proposed at the state level has been adopted. Legislation in California and Wisconsin was vetoed by their respective governors, who argued that transnational repression is in part or entirely a federal-level responsibility. Both governors also faced significant opposition to the legislation within their respective states from diaspora advocacy organizations.
The authors note that much of this legislation is similar. The commonalities of this legislation emphasize how important it is to legislate wisely: state-level legislation can have an influence far beyond the borders of a single state. To that end, the authors offer guidelines for future state-level legislation, including that it focus on intent not tactics, and that it be actor-agnostic.
The authors conclude that whether state-level legislation is the right or wrong approach is ultimately for the states to decide. But if state-level legislation can build further awareness of transnational repression and if it can play any role in protecting the lives and rights of individuals in the United States, it will have served a useful purpose.
The authors are proud to have published the first-ever survey of state-level legislation on transnational repression within the United States, and to have worked with Just Security in taking the lead on this emerging and important subject.
www.grossmanyoung.com | info@grossmanyoung.com | (240) 403-0913 | (301) 917-6900
*Disclaimer: This information is presented for the purposes of general education and does not constitute legal advice.
