Protecting the National Security and Welfare of the United States and its Citizens from Criminal Actors and Other Public Safety Threats

Risks & Considerations

• The Executive Order (EO) directs expanded access to and exchange of criminal history record information (CHRI) between DHS, DOJ sources, and trusted foreign governments (including Visa Waiver Program partners). This increases the likelihood that information about current or prospective Vanderbilt students, faculty, staff, and visitors could be accessed or exchanged among U.S. and foreign authorities for immigration and screening purposes.
• Privacy and legal compliance risk: CHRI is highly sensitive and its sharing raises Privacy Act, CJIS (FBI) policy, and other legal considerations. Although the EO requires protections and reciprocity, increased data flows create greater risk of accidental disclosure, inconsistent safeguards across partners, and potential challenges in ensuring compliance with federal and state privacy laws and university obligations (e.g., FERPA intersecting where student records are involved).
• International mobility and enrollment risk: Tighter screening based on foreign or U.S. felony records could lead to visa denials, travel restrictions, or returns for international students, visiting scholars, or program participants. Programs that rely on international cohorts or short-term residencies (e.g., Peabody programs abroad, study abroad, faculty exchanges) may see reduced participation or administrative delays.
• Reputational and equity risk: Students or staff with old or foreign convictions — including those that may not have been disclosed or adjudicated differently overseas — could be unexpectedly impacted by reciprocal exchanges. This may disproportionately affect international and immigrant members of the Vanderbilt community and create reputational risk if cases are publicized or perceived as mishandled.
• Operational and administrative burden: Increased vetting/screening expectations may require new interfaces with federal systems, additional coordination with DHS/DOJ, expanded background-check procedures, changes to admissions/HR workflows, and more OGC input. This produces resource demands on HR, ISSS, the Office of General Counsel, campus police, and program offices managing international activity.
• Research collaboration and foreign partner risk: Reciprocal CHRI arrangements could complicate collaborations with institutions in VWP or similar partner countries if partners are required to screen personnel or restrict exchanges. Some foreign partners may be reluctant to share personnel data, damaging trust and slowing research or program agreements.
• Potential opportunities and ambiguities: The EO emphasizes safeguards and reciprocity but leaves significant implementation detail to DHS/DOJ and to future agreements. That ambiguity both creates compliance uncertainty and could open competitive opportunities to partner on federal-funded projects related to border security, immigration policy research, or privacy-protecting technologies.

Impacted Programs & Units (Vanderbilt)

• International Student & Scholar Services (ISSS) — increased visa adjudication risk, need for case management, advising on screening outcomes and travel advisories.
• Global Education Office (Study Abroad) — potential enrollment declines, additional pre-departure screening, and altered risk assessments for host countries that participate in CHRI exchanges.
• Peabody College (LPO / Ed.D. international cohorts, e.g., UAE) — cohort mobility, residency logistics, and partner MOU review (noting Peabody’s UAE activities highlighted in internal materials).
• Vanderbilt University Medical Center & Research Units — international researchers and clinical collaborators may face vetting delays; grant proposals with international personnel components may require contingency planning.
• Human Resources (Hiring & Background Checks) — potential changes to pre-hire screening expectations for foreign nationals, need to reconcile university policies with federal screening outcomes.
• Office of General Counsel, Office of Compliance & Privacy — will need to review federal guidance, advise on MOUs, data transfer protections, and university notice/consent practices.
• Campus Security / Police — may be asked to coordinate with federal vetting processes or to respond to screening outcomes affecting campus members.
• Office of Federal Relations & Public Affairs — engagement with DHS/DOJ on implementation, external messaging, and advocacy over safeguards and student impacts.

Financial Impact

• Direct compliance costs: Legal review of agreements, updates to policies, staff time for additional screening and case management, and potential IT changes to track or respond to DHS inquiries will require budget allocations across OGC, ISSS, HR, and program offices.
• Enrollment and revenue risk: If visa denials or travel disruptions reduce international student or visiting-scholar enrollment, tuition and program-fee revenue could decline (noting Vanderbilt’s existing sensitivity to international mobility in global program snapshots).
• Grant and research funding implications: Projects dependent on international collaborators or personnel could face delays or increased indirect costs; conversely, the EO may create new federal funding opportunities in security, immigration policy research, or data-privacy solutions.
• Reputational costs and potential indirect financial impacts: Adverse publicity tied to perceived mishandling of affected community members or to partner disputes could affect philanthropy, recruitment, or partnerships in targeted geographies.

Immediate Actions for Leadership

• Direct OGC, Office of Compliance & Privacy, ISSS, and the Office of International Relations to perform a rapid risk assessment focused on: (a) current international programs in VWP or reciprocal-agreement countries (e.g., UAE cohorts and other partnerships), (b) existing MOUs that contemplate data sharing, and (c) HR background-check processes for foreign nationals.
• Update stakeholder guidance and counseling resources for affected students/faculty, including travel advisories and case-management pathways if DHS screening affects visas or entry.
• Engage proactively with DHS/DOJ contacts (via Office of Federal Relations) to seek clarity on safeguards, timelines, and expectations for university interactions; request guidance on how CHRI sharing will intersect with educational records and institutional responsibilities.
• Prepare communications templates for potential adverse events (e.g., visa denials or data requests) and brief senior leadership on likely scenarios and mitigation plans.

Relevance Score: 3 (Moderate risks typically involving compliance or ethics; requires coordinated institutional responses across privacy, international programs, and HR.)