H.R. 1902 (119th)Bill Overview

HERO Act

Health|Health
Sponsor
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Democratic
Introduced
Mar 6, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs HHS (with CDC and other agencies) to create a Public Safety Officer Suicide Reporting System, require periodic congressional reports, and protect data privacy. It authorizes discretionary grants for peer-support behavioral health programs in fire and EMS agencies and for healthcare provider wellness programs.

Why people may split

Privacy and federal data-collection scope versus local control concerns

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive statutory authorities and reporting requirements to address mental health and suicide among public safety officers, combining program creation, data collection, and resource development.

The bill directs HHS (with CDC and other agencies) to create a Public Safety Officer Suicide Reporting System, require periodic congressional reports, and protect data privacy.

It authorizes discretionary grants for peer-support behavioral health programs in fire and EMS agencies and for healthcare provider wellness programs.

The U.S. Fire Administration (with HHS) must develop resources to educate mental health professionals about firefighter and EMS culture.

Passage68/100

Targeted, nonpolar public-safety mental health measures have historically moved through Congress, but passage depends on appropriations and committee buy-in.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive statutory authorities and reporting requirements to address mental health and suicide among public safety officers, combining program creation, data collection, and resource development.

Contention30/100

Privacy and federal data-collection scope versus local control concerns

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitCreates national data to target suicide-prevention interventions for public safety officers.
  • Potential benefitAuthorizes grants to establish peer-support programs in fire and EMS agencies, expanding mental health services.
  • Potential benefitDirects development of PTSD best practices and clinician education tailored to first responder culture.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenCollecting and reporting detailed suicide data may impose new administrative burdens on jurisdictions.
  • Potential burdenPrivacy and data-security risks remain despite statutory confidentiality requirements.
  • Potential burdenPrograms and systems require appropriations; funding shortfalls could limit implementation or reach.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Privacy and federal data-collection scope versus local control concerns
Progressive90%

Supports the bill's focus on mental health supports, prevention, and data collection for public safety officers.

Sees peer-support grants, clinician training resources, and evidence-based PTSD guidance as important steps to reduce suicides and improve care access.

Would likely want stronger, guaranteed funding and expanded coverage to other first responders and more robust worker protections.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Generally favorable, seeing practical, evidence-focused measures to reduce suicides among public safety workers.

Values the bill's emphasis on data, privacy protections, and voluntary grants, but will want clear cost estimates, measurable outcomes, and efficient federal-state coordination.

Likely to support if implementation is fiscally responsible and respects state roles.

Leans supportive
Conservative60%

Cautiously supportive of measures helping public safety officers' mental health, but wary of federal data collection, ongoing costs, and bureaucratic expansion.

Prefers limited, clearly budgeted grants and strong privacy limits to prevent federal overreach.

May demand safeguards ensuring state/local control and no unfunded mandates.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood68/100

Targeted, nonpolar public-safety mental health measures have historically moved through Congress, but passage depends on appropriations and committee buy-in.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No explicit funding amounts or mandatory appropriations specified
  • State and local reporting participation and data completeness
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Privacy and federal data-collection scope versus local control concerns

Targeted, nonpolar public-safety mental health measures have historically moved through Congress, but passage depends on appropriations and…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive statutory authorities and reporting requirements to address mental health and suicide among public safety officers, combining program creation, da…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis