SB 560, 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 Parkland shooting as a motivating example. It would codify the Center’s core functions in federal law, including training, consultation, research, information sharing, and development of evidence-based threat assessment programs.
A major feature of the bill is the creation of a national targeted school violence prevention program, sometimes described as a Safe School Initiative. The Center would be directed to conduct and publish research, offer training to schools and other public and private entities, coordinate with the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, and consult with state and local officials and mental health professionals. The bill also authorizes the hiring of additional personnel with expertise in child psychological development and school threat assessment, requires a report to Congress within two years, and authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. The authorization would terminate on September 30, 2030.
The bill would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section defining the Center’s duties and by repealing a prior statutory note tied to the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000. It also includes a restriction that funds provided under the section may not be used to train anyone in firearm use, while clarifying that the provision does not affect other laws authorizing firearms training. The bill defines key terms such as “evidence-based,” “local educational agency,” and “State,” and applies the program across the states, D.C., and U.S. territories.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of behavioral threat assessment as a preventive public-safety tool. The findings emphasize that targeted violence is often preceded by observable warning signs and that early intervention, information sharing, and coordinated community response can prevent harm. The bill’s bipartisan sponsorship also suggests broad support for the general approach, though no committee transcript or vote record is available here to show debate or opposition.
The main points of potential contention are likely to center on federal involvement in school safety, the scope of information sharing, and the use of federal funds for threat assessment programs. Some observers may question whether the program could be implemented consistently across states and schools, whether it risks overreach into local education or mental health matters, or whether threat assessment practices could be applied unevenly. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by emphasizing evidence-based practices, coordination with existing agencies, and a prohibition on using the funds for firearms training.
SB 560 would create a new statutory section in title 18 governing the National Threat Assessment Center and would repeal a prior related note in federal law. It would expand the Center’s federal role in research, training, consultation, and coordination on targeted violence prevention, especially in K-12 school settings, and would authorize $10 million per year from FY 2026 through FY 2030 for those activities. The bill would affect the Secret Service, DHS, schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and other public-safety entities by formalizing a national framework for threat assessment and school violence prevention.
The bill is presented in a strongly supportive tone, with findings emphasizing prevention, early intervention, and the effectiveness of behavioral threat assessment. Its bipartisan introduction indicates cross-party agreement on the need to expand the Center’s work. No votes or committee hearing transcripts are available, so there is no recorded floor or committee opposition in the provided materials.
No formal opposition is shown in the available record, but the bill’s likely points of debate are the extent of federal involvement in school safety, the collection and sharing of threat-related information, and whether the program could be implemented fairly and effectively across diverse local settings. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring evidence-based practices, interagency coordination, consultation with state and local officials, and a prohibition on using the funds for firearm training.