Updated 6 days ago
Last progress December 11, 2025 (1 month ago)
Requires the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to convene an expert advisory committee and develop a federal rule to require installation or modification of interior and exterior doors in federally funded elementary and secondary schools, including technical specifications and safety tradeoffs. The bill directs CISA to report recommendations to Congress within one year and to issue a final rule six months after that report, and it authorizes $100 million per year (for the year the final rule is issued and each of nine subsequent fiscal years) through the Homeland Security Grant Program to support implementation. Also adds new, unspecified text to Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act addressing emergency response and parental notification procedures; the uploaded text for those provisions was not provided, so the specifics of those additions are not available for analysis.
Amend Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by adding new provision(s) at the end. The specific new text is not included in the provided file chunk.
CISA Director must convene a rulemaking advisory committee to review and develop findings and recommendations to require installation or modification of interior and exterior doors in any elementary or secondary school in the United States that receives Federal funding.
CISA Director, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall chair and appoint members to the rulemaking advisory committee.
Committee membership must include the Secretary of Education (or designee) and at least one representative from each of these constituencies: state and local law enforcement officers; school safety personnel or school resource officers; school safety advocates (which may include parents); public, private, or parochial school teachers or administrators; experts in ballistic shielding technology; experts in school construction (including structural engineering or architecture); and other stakeholders or experts the Director determines appropriate.
The committee must consider requirements for any reinforced door, including identification or specification of appropriate technologies, mechanisms, covers, adhesives, or other qualities to improve classroom and school building security.
Who is affected and how:
Federally funded K–12 schools and local education agencies (LEAs): Most directly affected. They may be required to install or retrofit interior and exterior doors to meet the forthcoming federal standard. That can mean capital construction projects, temporary classroom disruptions during retrofits, and ongoing maintenance obligations. Districts that rely on federal grants will likely need to apply for grant funds and comply with grant conditions tied to the standards.
Students, teachers, and school staff: Will experience construction/installation activities and may see changes intended to improve security (for example, different locksets, hardened doors, or altered sightlines). There are potential safety tradeoffs—improved forced-entry resistance vs. egress speed in emergencies—so rule design will directly affect daily safety and emergency response protocols.
Parents and families: Potentially affected both by the unspecified parental-notification/emergency-response provisions and by changes in school safety measures; parental-notification rules could change communication requirements after incidents, but the text for those changes was not provided.
Local/state government and school facilities managers: Responsible for planning, procurement, permitting, and contracting. They must coordinate with state building/fire code authorities to ensure retrofits meet life‑safety and accessibility requirements.
Construction contractors, door and security-hardware manufacturers, and testing/certification labs: Likely to see increased demand for compliant products and services (doors, frames, locks, glazing, testing, certification, installation). Supply-chain and workforce capacity may constrain rollout speed and costs.
Law enforcement and emergency responders: Involved as stakeholders in committee recommendations and in operational coordination; door standards may alter emergency-access procedures and responder equipment/training needs.
Federal agencies (CISA/DHS, grant administrators, Congressional committees): CISA will manage complex rulemaking and interagency coordination; DHS grant offices will administer funds and set grant conditions. Congress will receive the advisory report and may oversee implementation.
Other impacts and risks:
Funding vs. need: The bill authorizes $100M/year for ten years beginning the fiscal year of the final rule, but an authorization is not the same as an immediate appropriation; actual funding timing and sufficiency will affect how many schools can comply and how quickly.
Legal and technical conflicts: The rule must align with existing fire codes, ADA/accessibility standards, state building codes, and local permitting — unresolved tensions could slow deployment or require code changes.
Equity and prioritization: Without specified allocation rules, smaller or poorer districts may face barriers in accessing funds or scheduling retrofits; grant design will shape equitable distribution.
Unspecified parental-notification and emergency-response text: Because that material was not included, this analysis cannot evaluate changes to notification timing, privacy protections, reporting duties, or enforcement mechanisms that could directly affect districts and families.
Last progress February 13, 2025 (11 months ago)
Introduced on February 13, 2025 by Jared Moskowitz
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.