The Current Landscape of International/Foreign Intended Parentage (IP) Exclusion Laws

What’s Happening: Targeted Restrictions on Family Building

A new type of legislation bars people from other countries from becoming parents through gestational carrier (GC) arrangements in the United States (U.S.). These laws do not regulate direct clinical practice regarding GC arrangements. Instead, they void the contract between the intended parents and the GC (the patient carrying the pregnancy who has no genetic tie to the embryo) based on the intended parent’s (IP) nationality.

Recent Policy Measures

• Florida Ch. 2026-66 (HB 905, Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement Act) (FIRE Act), signed May 8, 2026, effective July 1, 2026. Voids any gestational surrogacy contract where any party is a citizen or resident of a “foreign country of concern” (§ 15, amending Fla. Stat. § 742.15(1)(b)), and applies the same restrictions to preplanned adoption agreements (§ 14, amending § 63.213).

• New Jersey Assembly Bill 4646 introduced Mar. 10, 2026 (Rep. Myhre + Rep. Peterson). Amends GC law to “lawful resident[s] of this State or [those] [] lawfully domiciled in the State for at least 12 months preceding the execution of the gestational carrier agreement.” Referred to the Assembly Community Development and Women's Affairs Committee (as of 3/10/26). S.B. 4274 (Sen. Amato) is the Senate companion bill. Referred to the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee (as of 5/14/26).

• S.3101/H.R. 7040, Stopping Adversarial Foreign Exploitation of Kids in Domestic Surrogacy Act (SAFE KIDS Act), introduced Jan. 13, 2026 (Sen. Rick Scott, R-FL; Rep. Moore, R-UT). Voids commercial surrogacy agreements with citizens of foreign-adversary countries, excepting only married couples with a citizen or green-card spouse; brokering one is a misdemeanor. S.B. 3101 (Sen. Scott, R-FL) is the Senate equivalent. S.B. 3101 was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary (as of 11/4/25). H.R. 7040 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor introductory remarks on measure (as of 1/21/26).

• H.R. 9132, Preventing International Surrogacy Exploitation Act, introduced June 3, 2026 (Rep. Perry, R-PA). Voids any surrogacy agreement between a U.S.-based, non-permanent resident and a foreign-national intended parent, excepting only married couples with a citizen or green-card spouse (§ 4(a)–(b)). Brokers face up to 10 years in prison (§ 5). Referred to House Judiciary Committee (6/3/26).

Abuse should be prosecuted. Exploitation should be prevented. But isolated cases should not become a pretext for restricting ethical Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) medical care, destabilizing families, or excluding people based on arbitrary, targeted standards including nationality.

Policymakers Who Care About Families Must: 

• Protect patients and families through clear, universal ethical standards. Documented abuse and deception require serious policy responses, but isolated cases should not be used to justify sweeping restrictions on assisted reproductive technology, particularly restrictions specifically targeted at so-called “countries of concern.” Effective policy should strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability—not arbitrarily and ideologically single out nationalities, families, patients, or providers.

• Keep national security and gestational carrier regulations distinct. National security, immigration, citizenship, and gestational carrier policy raise separate legal and policy questions. ART-focused legislation should be narrowly tailored to demonstrated risks—not used to regulate intended parents based on broad assumptions about parentage, nationality, or citizenship.

• Reject making citizenship a precondition for care. Citizenship, parentage, and immigration questions belong in the legal system—not in medical eligibility decisions before a child is born. ART and gestational carrier policy should allow ethical, medically appropriate care to proceed under clear standards, with legal-status questions handled by the proper authorities.

• Evaluate who bears the burden. Policymakers should ask whether these proposals actually protect children, gestational carriers, and families—or place them at greater risk. Laws that destabilize parentage, weaken carrier protections, or exclude legally present non-citizens may create more harm than they prevent. Effective policy should address clearly defined problems without imposing new burdens on children, carriers, or families.

• Demand complete, evidence-based data. Policymakers should scrutinize the statistics and assumptions used to justify these proposals. Selective or unsubstantiated figures can create a misleading picture of who uses gestational carrier arrangements and why. Legislation with far-reaching consequences should be grounded in transparent, contextualized data—not isolated numbers or unsupported claims.

• Legislate from facts, not fear. Policymakers should consider these bills within the broader landscape of embryo personhood, birthright citizenship, reproductive autonomy, and ART regulation. Documented abuses deserve serious, targeted responses, but isolated cases should not be used to justify sweeping restrictions on reproductive medicine. Effective policy should be grounded in evidence, ethics, and patient-centered standards, not assumptions about who should be allowed to become a parent.
  
  

The Bottom Line: 

Policymakers should respond to abuse with accountability—not overreach. 

Policymakers should take documented abuse, coercion, and exploitation seriously. But the answer is not fear-based or nationality-based exclusion; it is clear, uniform regulation that protects children, gestational carriers, patients, and families while holding bad actors accountable.

Effective gestational carrier policy should require meaningful screening, informed consent, independent legal counsel, transparent contracts, medical oversight, and enforceable safeguards against trafficking, coercion, and exploitation. Extreme cases should prompt targeted responses—not sweeping restrictions that destabilize parentage, weaken carrier protections, or deny care based on nationality, immigration status, or assumptions about who should become a parent.

Before legislating, policymakers should ask: 

• Are the cited cases representative, or are outliers being used to justify broader restrictions? 
• Are the claims complete, contextualized, and evidence-based? 
• Will the proposal actually prevent abuse—or simply shift new burdens onto children, carriers, and families?
  
  

ASRM stands ready to work with policymakers on responsible solutions: ethical, evidence-based ART and gestational carrier policy that regulates consistently, protects all parties, and focuses enforcement where it belongs—on abusive conduct, not nationality. Thanks to Josh Romero for his contributions and collaboration with the ASRM Center for Policy & Leadership in the development of this document.