Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill amends the Higher Education Act to require institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to publish and distribute detailed anti-harassment policies and campus reporting/statistics that explicitly cover harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and related conditions), disability, and religion. The bill expands definitions to expressly cover electronic communications, messaging services, and commercial mobile services, and requires institutions to describe prevention programs, reporting procedures, and institutional responses when patterns of harassment occur.
Scope and reach: liberals/centrists favor broad coverage including electronic communications; conservatives worry it extends to off-campus speech and private communications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-targeted and concrete in key respects (statutory amendments, required policy elements, grant program authorization, and reporting requirements).
This bill amends the Higher Education Act to require institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to publish and distribute detailed anti-harassment policies and campus reporting/statistics that explicitly cover harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and related conditions), disability, and religion.
The bill expands definitions to expressly cover electronic communications, messaging services, and commercial mobile services, and requires institutions to describe prevention programs, reporting procedures, and institutional responses when patterns of harassment occur.
It authorizes a competitive grant program administered by the Department of Education (eligible institutions or consortia) to prevent and respond to harassment, provide counseling or redress services, and train campus communities, with $50 million authorized per year for FY2026–2031.
Content alone makes this a plausible, moderate‑probability proposal: it addresses a recognized problem (harassment on campuses), uses established federal levers (HEA conditionality and competitive grants), and authorizes a modest amount of funding. Those features favor enactment. Offsetting risks include public debates about free speech vs harassment definitions, possible institutional resistance to added reporting burdens, and the need for bipartisan votes in a closely divided chamber—factors that lower but do not eliminate the bill's chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-targeted and concrete in key respects (statutory amendments, required policy elements, grant program authorization, and reporting requirements). It integrates clearly with existing law and creates a funding mechanism for implementation and evaluation.
Scope and reach: liberals/centrists favor broad coverage including electronic communications; conservatives worry it extends to off-campus speech and private communications.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and reach: liberals/centrists favor broad coverage including electronic communications; conservatives worry it extends to off-campus speech and private communications.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill positively as a proactive federal step to reduce campus harassment and to protect vulnerable students, including LGBTQ+ students and students of color.
They would welcome the explicit inclusion of electronic and mobile communications, institutional reporting requirements, and dedicated grant funding to support prevention, counseling, and training.
They may see the bill as strengthening civil-rights enforcement on campuses and filling gaps where institutions have been slow to act.
A centrist or moderate would likely be generally supportive of the bill's aims to reduce harassment and improve campus safety while expressing caution about implementation, cost, and due-process balance.
They would favor the grant program and evidence-based best practices, but want clear definitions, measurable outcomes, and safeguards against unintended consequences such as overbroad speech restrictions or poorly defined procedural obligations.
They would also look for fiscal clarity and accountability in how the $50 million per year is spent.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of the bill despite agreeing with the goal of preventing harassment; objections would focus on expanded federal mandates, possible impacts on free speech and student privacy, and the scope of federal involvement in campus governance.
They would be concerned that the bill's coverage of off-campus and electronic communications, plus protected categories like gender identity, could be used to police speech and compel institutions to take actions that conflict with religious or institutional autonomy.
They would also critique the creation of a new federal grant program and the $50 million-per-year authorization as an unnecessary expansion of federal spending and bureaucracy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content alone makes this a plausible, moderate‑probability proposal: it addresses a recognized problem (harassment on campuses), uses established federal levers (HEA conditionality and competitive grants), and authorizes a modest amount of funding. Those features favor enactment. Offsetting risks include public debates about free speech vs harassment definitions, possible institutional resistance to added reporting burdens, and the need for bipartisan votes in a closely divided chamber—factors that lower but do not eliminate the bill's chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and reach: liberals/centrists favor broad coverage including electronic communications; conservatives worry it extends to off-campus…
Content alone makes this a plausible, moderate‑probability proposal: it addresses a recognized problem (harassment on campuses), uses estab…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally well-targeted and concrete in key respects (statutory amendments, required policy elements, grant program authorizati…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.