Alabama House Bill HB504

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/25
• Refer: 4/1/25

Caption

Public Investments; to prohibit Board of Control of Employees' Retirement Systems of Alabama and Teachers' Retirement Systems of Alabama from investing with restricted entities affiliated with Communist Chinese military companies

Impact

If enacted, HB504 would impose strict limitations on investment activities by the Alabama retirement systems, requiring them to divest from any holdings classified under the bill's definitions of 'restricted entities.' These definitions expand upon existing federal designations aimed at Chinese entities identified as threatening to U.S. national security. As a result, this could lead to significant shifts in the investment strategies of these retirement funds, as they would need to assess and possibly liquidate investments in listed entities routinely.

Summary

House Bill 504 (HB504) proposes to amend the Code of Alabama to prohibit the Board of Control of the Teachers' Retirement System and the Employees' Retirement System from investing in certain entities affiliated with Communist Chinese military companies. The bill outlines specific restrictions in compliance with Presidential Executive Orders aimed at addressing national security threats posed by these investments. The primary focus is on ensuring that state retirement funds do not finance organizations that could contribute to military actions or undermine American defense interests.

Contention

The bill is likely to generate debate concerning the balance between national security and the investment flexibility of state funds. Proponents argue that the legislation is essential to prevent state resources from indirectly supporting adversarial military actions. However, critics may raise concerns about the potential financial repercussions of such restrictions, including lower returns on retirement funds and the challenges of rapidly identifying and divesting from the stated entities. There may be additional discussions on the implications for existing contracts and investments that state systems currently hold, prompting further scrutiny of how broadly definitions of 'restricted entities' are applied.