A Republican bill with 11 Democratic cosponsors · See all 24 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill establishes a five-year pilot program managed by the Attorney General to provide grants to public schools. It creates two specific types of grants: one for conducting independent facility security risk assessments and another for making hard security improvements. Public schools applying for the assessment grants must certify that they cannot afford the cost on their own, as outlined in Section 2(b). Schools applying for improvement grants must use the funds for updates identified by their risk assessments and comply with a 50 percent matching funds requirement, detailed in Section 2(c). The legislation gives explicit priority in awarding these grants to schools that have experienced an event involving deadly harm or attempted deadly harm against multiple individuals, according to Section 2(b)(2)(B) and Section 2(c)(2)(B). Finally, the bill requires recipients and the Attorney General to submit reports to Congress tracking the progress and effectiveness of the security updates, as stated in Section 2(e).
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into public schools?
The bill establishes a significant grant program specifically for public school security improvements.
- Scored +6
Would students be better off under this?
The bill directly aims to increase the physical safety and security of students in schools.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
The bill enhances the physical security of public school environments where children are present.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public schools that cannot afford to evaluate their own safety can receive federal assistance to conduct independent facility security risk assessments under Section 2(b)(1). This helps schools identify vulnerabilities without straining their local budgets.
-
Schools can receive federal funding to make hard security improvements under Section 2(c)(1), which includes updating infrastructure, doors, video monitoring, and visitor management technologies as defined in Section 2(g)(2).
-
Section 2(c)(5)(B) requires that if a panic alarm is not installed or operable, grant funds must be used to install at least one silent panic alarm directly linked to local law enforcement. This ensures faster emergency communication during active shooter or lockdown situations without alerting intruders.
-
Schools that have suffered through an event involving deadly harm or attempted deadly harm to multiple individuals receive priority for both assessment and improvement grants under Section 2(b)(2)(B) and Section 2(c)(2)(B), ensuring the hardest-hit communities get help first.
-
Section 2(c)(4)(B) allows the Attorney General to waive the 50 percent matching funds requirement for hard security improvements if a school has a financial need, preventing poor districts from being left behind.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2(c)(4)(A) states that the Federal share of a hard security improvement grant cannot exceed 50 percent of the total cost. This matching funds requirement could place a financial burden on cash-strapped schools and local taxpayers who still have to find matching funds if a waiver is not granted.
-
Section 2(b)(3)(A) and Section 2(c)(3)(A) make public schools ineligible to receive the same type of grant if they received one in the previous five fiscal years. This restriction could hurt schools that need ongoing financial assistance to maintain or expand their security measures over time.
-
Grant recipients must comply with extensive reporting requirements under Section 2(e)(1), which includes submitting surveys assessing how safe students and staff feel, tracking vulnerabilities, and reporting counts of violent events. This creates administrative burdens for school staff who are already busy educating children.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — The bill directly aims to increase the physical safety and security of students in schools. Would children be better off under this? — The bill enhances the physical security of public school environments where children are present. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill allows for the waiver of matching funds for schools demonstrating financial need. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The definition of public school specifically includes schools predominantly funded by Indian tribal governments. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increased school safety provides a more secure environment for students.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill establishes a significant grant program specifically for public school security improvements.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires periodic reporting to Congressional committees regarding school security status. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight and grant-making authority regarding school security.
- 10/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 9/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/16/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/13/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/11/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Don BaconRepublican · Nebraska
Robert BresnahanRepublican · Pennsylvania
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Gabe EvansRepublican · Colorado
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Young KimRepublican · California
Thomas KeanRepublican · New Jersey
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Nick LaLotaRepublican · New York
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Nicole MalliotakisRepublican · New York
Jared MoskowitzDemocrat · Florida
Ryan MackenzieRepublican · Pennsylvania
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia