Your TL;DR: Agencies now have expanded discretion to reject SBIR/STTR proposals based on perceived foreign risk, often without explanation or a chance to respond. This is no longer a rare outcome, and companies need to factor it into how they prepare, structure, and interpret submissions.
The shift is not procedural; it is philosophical
Most applicants still approach SBIR/STTR as merit-based competitions where strong science, credible commercialization, and alignment with agency priorities will carry the day. That framing misses a critical evolution. What has changed is not just the addition of disclosure requirements, but the elevation of national security interpretation as a parallel decision pathway, one that operates with far less transparency and far more discretion.
Congress has been explicit in its concern that foreign adversaries are accessing U.S. innovation through small business programs, and that concern has translated into pressure on agencies to identify and eliminate perceived risk earlier in the process. The challenge for applicants is that this evaluation layer does not behave like a technical or commercial review. It does not consistently surface concerns, and it does not reliably create opportunities for clarification. Many teams still assume that if something in their structure raises a question, it will be brought forward in a way they can respond to, yet in practice that assumption breaks down when reviewers are incentivized to avoid risk rather than resolve it.
Organizations with foreign ownership, investment, subcontracting, or institutional partnerships are now being interpreted through that lens. Compliance with disclosure requirements remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient to assume that compliance alone protects a proposal from being set aside. The interpretation of those relationships, often without direct engagement, has become part of the decision environment that applicants need to anticipate rather than react to after the fact.
As you consider how your proposal will be received, it is worth examining whether your current approach accounts for how those relationships might be interpreted in a review process that may not provide an opportunity to clarify intent or context.
The system already behaved this way, just unevenly
Prior to reauthorization, foreign relationships were captured through a defined disclosure structure, most notably the eight-question requirement that became standard across agencies. That framework gave applicants a sense that the process, while strict, was at least bounded and predictable in how information was collected and evaluated.
At the same time, there was a strong push to formalize a more aggressive posture. The original proposal advanced by Senator Ernst would have required agencies to determine whether an applicant presented a foreign risk and veto the award without providing an explanation. Although that language was not adopted in its most rigid form, it reflected a direction that parts of the system had already been moving toward, with agencies exercising discretion in ways that were not always visible to applicants.
The Department of Defense has historically allowed for some level of mitigation when concerns arise, which can create an opportunity for companies to clarify relationships, adjust structures, or provide additional context before a final decision is made. Other agencies have taken a different approach. NIH and NASA, in particular, have maintained processes where proposals can be declined under foreign risk considerations without a clear explanation, leaving applicants to interpret the outcome without insight into the underlying cause. From the outside, those decisions appear identical to standard rejections, even when they stem from a completely different evaluation pathway, and that lack of differentiation makes it difficult for companies to adjust their strategy in subsequent submissions.
Reauthorization introduced flexibility, not accountability
The reauthorization language introduced a change that appears, on the surface, to support greater transparency by allowing agencies to provide a reason when a proposal is rejected due to foreign risk. The distinction that matters is that this is permissive rather than required, which means agencies retain full discretion over whether to communicate their reasoning in any given case.
There is no requirement that applicants be given an opportunity to respond, clarify, or mitigate identified concerns. There is also no structural incentive for agencies to initiate that dialogue when declining a proposal is the faster and lower-risk option from an internal perspective. As a result, applicant experience may not change in a meaningful way, even as agency authority has expanded, and the presence of this flexibility does not ensure that it will be used.
At the same time, the scope of scrutiny is widening. Research institutions, including universities and federal laboratories involved in STTR projects, are receiving increased attention, and in some cases, that scrutiny extends into SBIR collaborations when institutional affiliations introduce additional layers of international engagement. For applicants, this creates a more complex landscape where risk is not limited to the small business itself, but can emerge through partnerships that are otherwise routine in research environments.
The GAP: risk can end your proposal without ever entering the conversation
Applicants typically treat rejection as a form of feedback, even when it is limited, and they rely on that feedback loop to refine future submissions. That model becomes unreliable when the deciding factor is never communicated.
A proposal can be technically strong, well-aligned with the solicitation, and still be declined because of how a relationship is interpreted internally during review. When that interpretation is not shared, the company has no way to determine whether the issue lies in the science, the commercialization strategy, or a perceived security concern. Subsequent submissions are then built on incomplete information, which increases the likelihood that the same issue will persist without being addressed.
Over time, this creates a pattern where companies continue to invest in proposal development while missing the underlying reason for repeated outcomes. The absence of explanation does not indicate the absence of a problem; it often indicates that the problem exists within a part of the evaluation process that is not visible to the applicant.
How this plays out in real submissions
A startup with minority foreign investment submits a proposal that aligns closely with an NIH solicitation, completes all required disclosures, and performs well in technical review. At some point in the internal process, the investment structure is flagged as a potential risk, and the proposal is declined without any indication that foreign relationships influenced the decision. From the applicant’s perspective, the outcome looks like a standard rejection, even though the determining factor was unrelated to the core content of the proposal.
A defense-focused company includes a foreign subcontractor providing a narrowly defined technical component. Within a Department of Defense context, that relationship may trigger additional questions or require restructuring before an award is finalized. In a different agency environment, the same configuration could result in a rejection without further engagement, depending on how the risk is assessed and whether the agency chooses to initiate dialogue.
STTR applicants encounter additional complexity through their research partners. A university laboratory may have international collaborations that are common within academic research but appear differently when evaluated under a security framework. The small business has limited visibility into those relationships and even less influence over how they are interpreted, yet the impact on the proposal can be significant.
Preparing for a review process that does not fully reveal itself
Companies cannot eliminate all perceived risk, and they do not control how agencies interpret complex relationships, but they can change how those relationships are understood and presented within the proposal context. Treating foreign affiliations as a central narrative element, rather than a compliance requirement addressed at the end of the process, reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation during review.
That shift begins with internal clarity around ownership structures, investment sources, subcontractor roles, and institutional partnerships. These elements need to be understood not only in terms of compliance but also in terms of how they might be perceived by a reviewer operating under a risk-avoidance mandate. Ambiguity in these areas increases the chances that a relationship will be flagged without the opportunity for clarification.
It also requires a change in expectation. Submission is no longer limited to presenting the strongest possible technical case; it involves anticipating where concerns could arise and considering whether those concerns would be answerable if they were never formally raised. Evaluating your proposal under that constraint can reveal gaps that would otherwise remain hidden until after a decision is made.
What this means for companies moving forward
The direction of policy suggests that discretion will remain a defining feature of how foreign risk is handled within SBIR and STTR programs. While some agencies may choose to provide more transparency, there is no indication that this will become consistent across the federal landscape.
Companies that recognize this dynamic early can adjust how they prepare submissions, structure relationships, and interpret outcomes, which allows them to respond strategically rather than reactively. Those who continue to rely on traditional feedback signals may find themselves repeating the same patterns without understanding the factors influencing their results.
As you review your submission strategy and plan future proposals, it may be worth considering whether your current approach accounts for evaluation criteria that are not explicitly communicated, and whether your organization is positioned to adapt when decisions are made without explanation.
Ready To Take the Next Step?
We assist our clients in locating, applying for, and evaluating the outcomes of non-dilutive grant funding. We believe non-dilutive funding is a crucial tool for mitigating investment risks, and we are dedicated to guiding our clients through the entire process—from identifying the most suitable opportunities to submitting and managing grant applications.