Homeland Security, Bureau of; established, powers and duties, report.
HB2564 would reorganize and expand Virginia’s homeland security structure by creating a Bureau of Homeland Security within the Department of State Police and assigning it new coordination, intelligence-sharing, and planning responsibilities. The bill also amends the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security’s duties to require oversight of a comprehensive homeland security strategy, including coordination with the Secure and Resilient Commonwealth Panel, the Superintendent of State Police, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), and other state and local entities.
The bill directs the Commonwealth to maintain a more formalized, measurable approach to preparedness for man-made and natural disasters. It requires annual strategy reviews, designated agency leads for homeland security goals, metrics for readiness, and stronger oversight of emergency operations planning, sheltering, evacuation, traffic control, refuge-of-last-resort planning, and critical infrastructure protection. It also authorizes the Secretary to contract for public and private services to support homeland security and emergency management functions.
In addition to structural changes, HB2564 requires the Bureau of Homeland Security to coordinate intelligence and information sharing, maintain a list of critical infrastructure sites, serve as a repository for security clearances, and consult on the Commonwealth’s homeland security strategy. The bill also requires the Secretary to convene a work group to study how responsibilities for threat detection, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery should be allocated, with a report due to the Governor and legislative committee chairs by November 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new bureau inside the State Police, expand statutory homeland security planning and oversight duties, and formalize interagency coordination requirements across emergency management, public safety, transportation, health, and intelligence-related functions. It would affect state agencies, local governments, and emergency planning entities by imposing more structured planning, monitoring, and reporting expectations, especially for disaster response and critical infrastructure protection.
Overall sentiment cannot be determined from committee debate or votes because no transcripts or recorded votes were provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening preparedness and coordination, but it may raise questions about agency roles, administrative burden, and overlap between existing emergency management and state police functions.
HB2564 would amend existing provisions governing the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and the Department of State Police, while adding a new Code section establishing a Bureau of Homeland Security. It would expand statutory duties related to homeland security strategy, emergency planning, critical infrastructure protection, intelligence coordination, and interagency oversight, and would require a work group report to the Governor and legislative committee chairs. The bill would primarily affect the Department of State Police, VDEM, the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, and state and local governments involved in emergency preparedness and response.
No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no recorded discussion-based sentiment to summarize. From the bill text, the proposal appears generally security- and preparedness-oriented, with an emphasis on coordination, planning, and measurable readiness. Because it creates new structures and oversight duties, it could be viewed as both a public safety enhancement and an administrative expansion.
No explicit points of contention are available from transcripts or votes. Potential areas of debate suggested by the bill itself include whether a new Bureau of Homeland Security is necessary within State Police, whether the proposed duties duplicate existing responsibilities of VDEM or other agencies, how much authority the Secretary should have over local planning, and whether the reporting and planning requirements would impose additional administrative or fiscal burdens on agencies and localities.