PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
EAGLES Act of 2025
This bill reauthorizes the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) within the U.S. Secret Service.
It reauthorizes the functions of NTAC through FY2030 and expands them to include additional activities related to the prevention of targeted violence, such as the establishment of a national program on targeted school violence prevention.
People & committees
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1299 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1299 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1299 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1299 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed EAGLES Act of 2025 would put the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center into federal law and require a national program to help prevent targeted school violence. The Center would research prevention methods, offer training, and advise on assessing threats. Schools, public safety agencies, and other public and private organizations could receive assistance. The bill would authorize funding, but would not itself provide that money.
This Act may be cited as the EAGLES Act of 2025.
There is established a National Threat Assessment Center (in this section referred to as the Center), to be operated by the United States Secret Service, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2) Consultation on complex threat assessment cases and programs. (3) Research on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence, consistent with evidence-based standards and existing laws and regulations.
the Center shall establish a national program on targeted school violence prevention
The Center shall develop and offer training courses on targeted school violence prevention to agencies with protective or public safety responsibilities and other public or private entities, including local educational agencies.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
Section 2 presents Congress’s proposed findings and policy view supporting fact-based threat assessment, meaning evaluating concerning behavior to assess a possible risk of violence. It emphasizes early intervention and community support, and describes this approach as a memorial to the victims and people who protected others in the February 14, 2018, Parkland school attack. These are legislative statements, not proof that the bill would prevent violence.
(A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting threatening or concerning behaviors that indicate they may pose a risk of violence; (B) assessing whether the individual poses a risk, based on articulable facts;
The primary goal of behavioral threat assessment programs is to prevent targeted violence, with an emphasis on providing early intervention and connecting individuals exhibiting threatening or concerning behavior to existing community resources for support.
It is the sense of Congress that a fact-based behavioral threat assessment approach, involving local law enforcement, mental health professionals, workplace managers, school personnel, other public safety officials, and members of the community, is one of the most effective ways to prevent targeted violence impacting communities across the country, and is a fitting memorial to those whose lives were taken in the February 14, 2018, attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and those who heroically acted to preserve the lives of their friends, students, and colleagues.
The bill would add a new section 3056B to title 18 of the United States Code, establishing the Center under the Secret Service and the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The findings describe the Center as already established in 1998, so the proposal concerns an existing organization.
Chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3056A the following: 3056B. Functions of the National Threat Assessment Center of the United States Secret Service
There is established a National Threat Assessment Center (in this section referred to as the Center), to be operated by the United States Secret Service, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (referred to in this Act as the Center) was established in 1998 to conduct research on all forms of targeted violence
The Center’s required work would include training, education, advice on complex threat assessment cases and programs, and research on preventing targeted violence. Research would have to follow evidence-based standards and existing laws and regulations.
The functions of the Center shall include the following: (1) Training and education in the area of best practices on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence. (2) Consultation on complex threat assessment cases and programs. (3) Research on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence, consistent with evidence-based standards and existing laws and regulations.
The Center would help organizations share information about threat assessment and violence prevention. It would also develop evidence-based programs to promote consistent threat assessments and prevention practices across federal, state, and local government.
(4) Facilitation of information sharing on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence among agencies and organizations with protective or public safety responsibilities, as well as other public or private entities. (5) Development of evidence-based programs to promote the standardization of Federal, State, and local threat assessments and best practices for the prevention of targeted violence.
The required national school violence prevention program would research targeted school violence and evidence-based prevention practices, including school threat assessment. The Center would publish its findings on both the Secret Service website and the School Safety Clearinghouse website.
the Center shall establish a national program on targeted school violence prevention
The Center shall— (A) conduct research into targeted school violence and evidence-based practices in targeted school violence prevention, including school threat assessment; and (B) publish the findings of the Center on the public website of the United States Secret Service and on the School Safety Clearinghouse website, known as www.SchoolSafety.gov.
The Center would develop and offer school violence prevention courses to public safety agencies and other public or private entities, including local educational agencies. Within one year after enactment, it would have to establish a plan to offer training and educational resources to entities in every state; that deadline is for the plan, not completion of all training.
The Center shall develop and offer training courses on targeted school violence prevention to agencies with protective or public safety responsibilities and other public or private entities, including local educational agencies.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this section, the Center shall establish a plan to offer its training and other educational resources to public or private entities within each State.
The Center would have to coordinate its research and training programs with the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. It could also consult state and local education, law enforcement, and mental health officials, as well as private entities.
The Center shall develop research and training programs under this section in coordination with the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Center is authorized to consult with State and local educational, law enforcement, and mental health officials and private entities in the development of research and training programs under this section.
The Center could create an interactive website sharing information and data about evidence-based school violence prevention practices. Creating this additional website would be optional.
The Center may create an interactive website to disseminate information and data on evidence-based practices in targeted school violence prevention.
The Secret Service Director could hire additional staff to carry out the new section. If the Director used that authority, the hires would have to include at least one employee with expertise in child psychological development and at least one with expertise in school threat assessment.
The Director of the United States Secret Service may hire additional personnel to comply with the requirements of this section, which, if the Director exercises such authority, shall include— (1) at least one employee with expertise in child psychological development; and (2) at least one employee with expertise in school threat assessment.
Within two years after enactment, the Secret Service Director would have to report on implementation to the specified House and Senate judiciary, education, and appropriations committees.
Not later than two years after the date of enactment of this section, the Director of the Secret Service shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on actions taken by the United States Secret Service to implement provisions of this section
The report would count staff hired using full-time equivalent positions, a measure that expresses staffing in full-time workloads. It would also count people and school districts trained in each state, identify government agencies assisted, evaluate effectiveness and school implementation, summarize research, and provide a plan for distributing resources to every state.
(1) The number of employees hired (on a full-time equivalent basis). (2) The number of individuals in each State trained in threat assessment. (3) The number of school districts in each State trained in school threat assessment or targeted school violence prevention. (4) Information on Federal, State, and local agencies trained or otherwise assisted by the Center. (5) A formal evaluation indicating whether the training and other assistance provided by the Center is effective. (6) A formal evaluation indicating whether the training and other assistance provided by the Center was implemented by the school. (7) A summary of the Center’s research activities and findings. (8) A strategic plan for disseminating the Center’s educational and training resources to each State.
The bill would authorize Congress to provide $10 million for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out the new section. An authorization permits future appropriations; it does not itself supply the money.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
Money made available under the new section could not pay to train anyone to use a firearm. The restriction would leave other laws authorizing firearms training unaffected.
Amounts made available to carry out this section may not be used to train any person in the use of a firearm.
Nothing in this section may be construed to preclude or contradict any other provision of law authorizing training in the use of firearms.
The proposed section 3056B would terminate on September 30, 2030.
(i) Termination This section shall terminate on September 30, 2030.
The bill would define evidence-based work to include three alternatives: strong evidence from an experiment; moderate evidence from a study resembling an experiment; or promising evidence from a study of relationships between factors that statistically adjusts for selection bias. Each alternative would require at least one well-designed and well-implemented study.
The term evidence-based means— (A) strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; (B) moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (C) promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.
For the new section, “State” would include all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The bill would use the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act definition of “local educational agency,” whose full wording is not supplied.
The term local educational agency has the meaning given such term under section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)
The term State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The bill would repeal section 4 of the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 and add the new section to the United States Code’s table of sections. The supplied text does not reproduce the provision being repealed, so it does not establish the full effect of that repeal.
Section 4 of the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (18 U.S.C. 3056 note) is repealed.
The table of sections for chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3056A the following new item: 3056B. Functions of the National Threat Assessment Center of the United States Secret Service.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 13, 2025, and referral that day to the Judiciary Committee and additionally to the Education and Workforce Committee. This snapshot does not establish whether the bill later advanced or became law.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:26:37Z.
2025-02-13: Introduced in House
2025-02-13: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the content or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular outside recipient or locality was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. General program authorization is not automatically an earmark. This conclusion is limited to this version; formal earmark materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption, or exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program beneficiaries and administration do not by themselves qualify. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI