Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Creates a grant program, administered by the ONDCP Director, to fund partnerships between existing Drug-Free Communities coalitions and local elementary, middle, or high schools to implement tailored substance use prevention programs. Grants are up to $75,000 per fiscal year, renewable for up to three additional years, with a $7 million annual authorization (FY2026–2031) and up to 8% for administrative costs.
Liberals worry about punitive approaches; conservatives worry about federal overreach
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped grant program with clear objectives, explicit funding authorization, and basic administrative constraints while relying on agency implementation for procedural detail.
Creates a grant program, administered by the ONDCP Director, to fund partnerships between existing Drug-Free Communities coalitions and local elementary, middle, or high schools to implement tailored substance use prevention programs.
Grants are up to $75,000 per fiscal year, renewable for up to three additional years, with a $7 million annual authorization (FY2026–2031) and up to 8% for administrative costs.
Applications must include a detailed plan, funds must supplement not supplant other funding, evaluations follow existing Drug-Free Communities requirements, and the Director may delegate implementation to other federal drug-control agencies.
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively tidy, improving chances; final outcome depends on appropriations and legislative calendar.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped grant program with clear objectives, explicit funding authorization, and basic administrative constraints while relying on agency implementation for procedural detail.
Liberals worry about punitive approaches; conservatives worry about federal overreach
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about punitive approaches; conservatives worry about federal overreach
Generally supportive of community-school prevention partnerships and funding for youth substance-use prevention, but cautious about program design and equity.
Would want assurances programs are evidence-based, non-punitive, and prioritize public-health approaches over criminalization.
Views the bill as a pragmatic, targeted federal program using existing coalitions to prevent youth substance misuse.
Sees value in limited funding and built-in evaluation but wants clarity on overlap, accountability, and measurable outcomes.
Likely receptive to a prevention-focused program that empowers local coalitions and schools, but wary of expanding federal grant programs and possible curricular or ideological intrusion into schools.
Prefers tight oversight and minimal federal bureaucracy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively tidy, improving chances; final outcome depends on appropriations and legislative calendar.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about punitive approaches; conservatives worry about federal overreach
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively tidy, improving chances; final outcome depends on appropriations and legislative calendar.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped grant program with clear objectives, explicit funding authorization, and basic administrative constraints while relying on agency implementa…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.