HB1299, the EAGLES Act of 2025, would reauthorize and expand the National Threat Assessment Center within the U.S. Secret Service, operating under the Department of Homeland Security. The bill is framed around preventing targeted violence, especially school violence, and cites the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting as a motivating example. It would codify the Center’s functions in federal law, including training, consultation, research, information sharing, and development of evidence-based threat assessment programs.
The bill directs the Center to establish a national program on targeted school violence prevention. That program would include research on school threat assessment, training for schools and public-safety entities, coordination with the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, consultation with state and local officials and private entities, and potentially an interactive website for sharing best practices. It also requires the Secret Service to hire additional personnel if needed, including staff with expertise in child psychological development and school threat assessment, and to report to Congress on implementation, training reach, research findings, and effectiveness.
In terms of legal impact, the bill would add a new section to title 18 of the U.S. Code, repeal a prior statutory note tied to the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, and authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. It also sets a termination date of September 30, 2030, and specifies that the funding may not be used to train anyone in firearm use, while preserving other laws that may authorize firearms training. The bill would affect federal agencies, schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and other public-safety partners by formalizing a federal role in behavioral threat assessment and school violence prevention.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of preventive, evidence-based intervention. The findings emphasize that targeted violence is preventable, that warning behaviors often exist before attacks, and that collaborative threat assessment can divert individuals from the criminal justice system toward community support. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or bipartisan debate in the available materials, but the bill’s structure suggests a consensus-oriented public safety approach.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of federal involvement in school safety and threat assessment, including how much authority and coordination the federal government should have with local schools, law enforcement, and mental health systems. Another possible issue is the balance between preventive intervention and concerns about privacy, civil liberties, or overreach in identifying individuals who may pose a risk. The bill also explicitly separates threat-assessment training from firearms training, which may matter to stakeholders concerned about the use of federal funds.
HB1299 would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code to create and define the National Threat Assessment Center’s duties, effectively making its school-violence-prevention and behavioral threat-assessment work a formal statutory function. It would authorize new appropriations, require reporting to Congress, and repeal a prior statutory note, thereby reshaping the federal legal framework for targeted violence prevention and interagency school-safety coordination. The bill would primarily affect the Secret Service, DHS, federal education and health partners, state and local public-safety agencies, and K-12 schools and educational agencies that receive training or consultation.
The bill is presented in a strongly favorable light, with an emphasis on prevention, evidence-based practices, and collaboration across law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and community partners. The findings and sense of Congress portray the measure as a response to school violence and as a memorial to the Parkland victims, suggesting a solemn and supportive tone. No votes or committee debate are provided, so there is no recorded formal opposition in the supplied materials.
The most likely areas of contention are federalism and implementation: whether a national center should standardize threat assessment practices for states and localities, how much discretion schools and local agencies should retain, and whether the approach could raise privacy or civil-liberties concerns if concerning behavior is identified too broadly. Some stakeholders may also question funding levels, staffing mandates, and the effectiveness of federal training programs, while others may focus on the bill’s explicit prohibition on using funds for firearms training and its preservation of other firearms-related laws.