SB 241 revises the Cyber Maryland Program by moving it from the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO) to the Maryland Department of Labor. The bill also renames the governing subtitle, updates terminology throughout the statute, and expands the Program’s stated mission to focus on building a cyber workforce pipeline, coordinating training and education, supporting cybersecurity research and innovation, and helping strengthen the cybersecurity posture of state and local government and critical infrastructure.
The bill broadens the Program’s operational duties. It requires ongoing research with industry partners to identify workforce needs, use that data to improve existing state programs, facilitate new training partnerships, and develop a statewide cybersecurity workforce strategic plan. It also revises the Cyber Maryland Fund so it can support administrative costs and grants to a wider range of entities, including schools, colleges, employers, apprenticeship sponsors, workforce boards, labor unions, local governments, and economic development entities, at the Department’s discretion. The bill removes prior fixed funding requirements tied to the fund and instead requires the Governor to include an annual appropriation sufficient for the Program.
SB 241 also changes the Cyber Maryland Board’s membership and governance. It adds the Secretaries of Higher Education and of Commerce, the State Superintendent of Schools, and TEDCO’s CEO or designee, while adjusting other membership references to reflect the Program’s move to the Department of Labor. The bill adds a diversity statement for board membership, establishes four-year staggered terms for appointed members, and keeps the annual reporting requirement beginning in 2026.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily administrative and structural: it relocates the Program within state government, expands eligible grant recipients and program activities, and updates the board’s composition and term rules. It does not create a new program from scratch, but it substantially revises how the existing cybersecurity workforce initiative is organized, funded, and overseen under Maryland law.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented public debate or vote history to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of cybersecurity workforce development and state coordination, with the main policy choices centered on where the program should be housed, how broadly funds may be used, and how the board should be structured.
SB 241 amends Maryland law by transferring the Cyber Maryland Program and Cyber Maryland Fund from the Economic Development Article to the Labor and Employment Article, placing administration with the Department of Labor instead of TEDCO. It revises the Program’s statutory duties, expands the list of entities eligible for grants, removes earlier fixed annual funding directives, and requires the Governor to budget an amount sufficient for the Program. It also updates the Cyber Maryland Board’s membership, adds diversity and staggered-term provisions, and preserves annual reporting requirements beginning in 2026.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. From the bill text, the overall sentiment appears favorable toward strengthening cybersecurity workforce development, improving coordination, and expanding partnerships. The bill’s structure suggests a consensus-oriented administrative reorganization rather than a controversial policy shift.
The likely points of contention are the transfer of the Program from TEDCO to the Department of Labor, the removal of prior specific funding requirements in favor of a more open-ended annual appropriation, and the broader discretion given to the Department to award grants to a wide range of entities. Another possible issue is board composition, including the addition of new state officials and the removal or replacement of TEDCO-related roles, which may affect institutional influence over the Program. No specific objections were documented in the provided materials.