A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
The PILLAR Act seeks to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to reauthorize the State and local cybersecurity grant program. This legislation expands the scope of the program to include operational technology systems and artificial intelligence. It introduces new definitions for terms like "artificial intelligence system" and "foreign entity of concern." The bill also updates requirements for identity and access management, specifically mentioning multi-factor authentication. Additionally, it adjusts federal funding shares and extends the program's timeline through fiscal year 2033.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill strengthens cybersecurity by expanding grant scope to include artificial intelligence and operational technology, and incentivizing multi-factor authentication.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill specifically requires outreach and access for rural areas and local governments with small populations.
- Scored +5
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill mandates outreach and ensures access for rural areas and local governments with small populations to cybersecurity services.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill does not provide direct economic relief to low-income households.
- Scored -1
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill does not directly impact housing affordability, but may indirectly divert state attention toward cybersecurity infrastructure.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Security for Critical Infrastructure: The bill expands the focus to include "operational technology systems" and "artificial intelligence," which helps protect essential services from modern threats (Section 2).
-
Support for Vulnerable Systems: The act aims to bolster the resilience of "outdated or vulnerable information systems or operational technology systems" (Section s, subsection (e)(ii)(A)(xii)).
-
Increased Federal Funding for Security Measures: The Federal share of costs may increase from 60-70 percent to 65-75 percent if entities implement multi-factor authentication and identity management tools by October 1, 2027 (Section 2, subsection (m)(1)).
-
Inclusion of Underserved Areas: The bill mandates outreach and ensures access for "rural areas and other local governments with small populations" (Section 2, subsection (e)(ii)(A)(xv)).
-
Expanded Support through Academic Partnerships: The bill allows for the inclusion of "academic and nonprofit entities, including cybersecurity clinics and other nonprofit technical assistance programs" (Section 2, subsection (e)(ii)(A)(xiv)(vv)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Technology Purchases: Entities are prohibited from purchasing software or hardware that does not align with Agency guidance, such as "Secure by Design," or products maintained by a "foreign entity of concern" (Section 2, subsection (j)(1)(G)).
-
Future Budgetary Burdens for Local Governments: The act suggests that local governments may need to include the costs of continuing programs in their own budgets once grant funds are fully expended (Section 2, subsection (r)(2)(A)(iii)).
-
Limits on Local Decision-Making: A cybersecurity planning committee cannot make decisions regarding the actual information or operational technology systems maintained by the eligible entity (Section 2, subsection (g)(5)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill strengthens cybersecurity by expanding grant scope to include artificial intelligence and operational technology, and incentivizing multi-factor authentication.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill specifically requires outreach and access for rural areas and local governments with small populations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill may indirectly benefit middle-class households by securing the digital infrastructure of their local governments. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill does not provide direct economic relief to low-income households.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill mandates outreach and ensures access for rural areas and local governments with small populations to cybersecurity services.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill allows for the inclusion of academic and nonprofit entities, such as cybersecurity clinics, in the cybersecurity program.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill expands cybersecurity grant eligibility to include operational technology and artificial intelligence, which can help secure smaller business-critical infrastructures.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates GAO reviews of the grant selection process and artificial intelligence adoption every three years.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill does not directly impact housing affordability, but may indirectly divert state attention toward cybersecurity infrastructure.
- 11/18/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 11/17/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4685-4687)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4685-4687)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5078.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4685-4688)
- Mr. Garbarino moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 11/12/2025
- Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-377.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 328.
- 10/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 1.
- 9/2/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Gabe EvansRepublican · Colorado
Andrew GarbarinoRepublican · New York
Eric SwalwellDemocrat · California
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia