Overview
Title
To amend title 18, United States Code, to reauthorize and expand the National Threat Assessment Center of the Department of Homeland Security.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1299 is a plan that helps keep schools safe by teaching people how to spot and stop bad things before they happen, but it doesn't include learning about using guns. It will get lots of money, like $10 million each year, to help make schools safer until the year 2030.
Summary AI
H.R. 1299, known as the “EAGLES Act of 2025,” aims to reauthorize and expand the National Threat Assessment Center of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill highlights the need for a proactive approach to prevent school violence by using threat assessments and emphasizes training for law enforcement, schools, and other entities to recognize and manage potential threats. It also establishes an initiative for targeted school violence prevention and allocates funding to support these efforts from 2026 through 2030. Additionally, the bill ensures that no funds will be used for firearms training, while encouraging collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies and officials.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 1299, known as the “EAGLES Act of 2025,” is a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing national safety by reauthorizing and expanding the National Threat Assessment Center under the Department of Homeland Security. The bill seeks to bolster efforts in preventing targeted violence through research, training, and the establishment of comprehensive threat assessment protocols. It specifically emphasizes the prevention of violence in schools in remembrance of the victims of the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Significant Issues
Several key issues arise from this bill. The proposal allocates $10 million annually to finance these efforts from 2026 through 2030 but does not lay out specific metrics or benchmarks to assess the program's success. Without clear guidelines, the potential for inefficient allocation of resources exists.
Additionally, the bill strictly prohibits using funds for firearms training, which could limit the comprehensiveness of threat management training programs. This exclusion might be a sticking point for some stakeholders who question whether complete threat assessment training should include aspects of firearms safety and awareness.
Another significant issue concerns the bill's sunset clause, which terminates the program in 2030 without discussing how its functions will continue thereafter. A lack of a clear post-termination plan could create gaps in national and school safety efforts.
Furthermore, the bill calls for nationwide training, yet it lacks specific strategies for partnering with local entities or for state-level implementation. This could result in uneven execution of the program across different states, affecting its overall effectiveness.
The complex and technical language of the bill could also hinder public understanding and engagement, potentially affecting public trust in the legislation's intent and execution.
Potential Impact on the Public
The bill’s focus on preventing targeted violence is likely to be seen positively by the public, particularly by those concerned about safety in educational environments. By providing structured resources and training for threat assessment, the initiative could reduce the likelihood of incidents similar to the Parkland tragedy.
However, the heavy financial commitment and the program's complexity might raise questions among taxpayers who seek transparency and accountability in government spending. The absence of clear metrics for success could exacerbate these concerns.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Law Enforcement and Public Safety Officials: These stakeholders may benefit from increased resources and training programs, aiding in the development of effective strategies to prevent and respond to potential threats.
Educational Institutions: Schools stand to gain from enhanced training and resources focused on preventing school violence. The initiative might also support educators and school officials in identifying and managing potential threats more effectively.
Community and Mental Health Professionals: Expanded collaboration opportunities through the program might improve early intervention strategies, thus aiding professionals in addressing concerning behaviors before they escalate into violence.
Critics and Supporters of Firearms Training: The prohibition of firearms training may be applauded by those advocating for non-armed responses to threats. Conversely, the measure could face criticism from others who argue that comprehensive threat management should include firearms safety and awareness aspects.
Overall, while the EAGLES Act proposes to expand essential resources and preventive strategies against targeted violence, its success will largely depend on clear implementation guidelines, measurable outcomes, and public understanding and support.
Financial Assessment
The "EAGLES Act of 2025," also known as H.R. 1299, seeks to expand and reauthorize the National Threat Assessment Center under the Department of Homeland Security. A central feature of this legislation is the financial allocations aimed at supporting the Center's expanded operations and initiatives.
Financial Summary
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 in appropriations annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. This significant investment is intended to fund various efforts, including training law enforcement and educational institutions in threat assessment and targeted violence prevention methods.
Financial Allocations and Related Issues
- Significant Funding and Accountability
The allocation of $10 million annually is noteworthy, given the periodic nature of the funding commitment through 2030. However, concerns may arise regarding the clarity and specificity of how these funds will be spent. A breakdown of the distribution of these appropriations is not provided, which could lead to potential misallocation or inefficient resource use. Establishing clear metrics and benchmarks for the effectiveness of this funding is crucial, yet the bill does not specify such mechanisms, leaving a gap in accountability.
- Prohibition on Firearms Training
The bill explicitly states that no portion of the funds shall be used to train individuals in firearms use. While this aims to refocus resources on threat assessment without involving firearms training, some stakeholders might see this as a limitation. Certain groups argue that comprehensive threat management should include firearm safety and awareness, suggesting that this prohibition could be a gap in the training program.
- Plan for Post-Termination Period
The bill's provisions will terminate on September 30, 2030, without addressing a continuation or transition plan for the Center's functions post-termination. This could potentially leave a void in the established threat assessment and violence prevention efforts, raising concerns about the sustainability of these initiatives after the funding period.
- Implementation Across States
Although the Center is tasked with developing a plan to offer training resources within each state, the lack of detailed outreach strategies and partnership plans might lead to inconsistent application across different states. This issue could directly impact the program's reach and effectiveness, particularly in diverse local settings with varying needs.
- Comprehensibility and Public Engagement
The technical nature of the language used throughout the bill may limit public understanding, which could affect transparency and public trust. Clear communication about the appropriation and utilization of these funds is essential for maintaining public confidence in government spending.
Overall, while the EAGLES Act of 2025 allocates considerable funding to expand threat assessment efforts, attention to detailed implementation strategies and accountability measures will be vital to maximize its intended impact.
Issues
The allocation of $10,000,000 annually from fiscal years 2026 to 2030 for the National Threat Assessment Center might be considered significant, and there is a need for clear metrics or benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness and outcome of this funding. There is a lack of a detailed breakdown on how exactly the funds will be allocated, leaving room for potential misallocation or inefficient use of resources. (Sections 3, 3056B(f))
The prohibition on using funds for firearms training may limit comprehensive threat management programs, potentially excluding types of training that some stakeholders argue should include firearm safety and awareness. This might raise concerns about the completeness of the threat assessment training. (Section 3056B(g))
The bill does not address the continuation or transition of the functions or responsibilities of the National Threat Assessment Center post-termination on September 30, 2030. This could create gaps in threat assessment and violence prevention efforts. (Section 3056B(i))
There is a lack of specificity regarding the outreach strategies and potential partnerships with local entities for offering training and educational resources within each state. This may result in uneven implementation across states, directly impacting the effectiveness and reach of the program. (Sections 3, 3056B(c)(2))
The language used throughout the bill is quite technical and may be challenging for individuals without a legal or specialized background to understand, limiting public comprehension and oversight. This could affect public trust and transparency. (Section 3)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states its official name, which is the "EAGLES Act of 2025."
2. Findings; sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that targeted violence, like the Parkland school shooting, is preventable through early intervention and a behavioral threat assessment approach. This approach involves collaboration among law enforcement, mental health professionals, school personnel, and the community, aiming to identify and manage potential threats, thus memorializing the victims and heroes of the attack.
3. Reauthorization and expansion of the national threat assessment center of the Department of Homeland Security Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed legislation would establish a National Threat Assessment Center operated by the United States Secret Service to focus on practices to prevent targeted violence, with specific programs for targeted school violence prevention. It outlines the Center's responsibilities, such as research, training, coordination with other agencies, and creating an interactive website, and also includes the hiring of additional staff, budget provisions, and a termination date of September 30, 2030.
Money References
- “(f) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
3056B. Functions of the National Threat Assessment Center of the United States Secret Service Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The United States Secret Service is creating a National Threat Assessment Center to help prevent targeted violence through training, research, and sharing information. The center will also focus on preventing school violence and will work with various government departments and outside organizations, while reporting progress to Congress and receiving funding until 2030.
Money References
- (8) A strategic plan for disseminating the Center’s educational and training resources to each State. (f) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.