Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill creates a government program to coordinate responses to security threats and adversarial activities.
The problem
Federal agencies may lack coordinated systems for identifying and responding to security threats from hostile actors or adversarial nations.
The proposal
Establishes collaborative framework between federal agencies to share information, coordinate actions, and develop strategies against security threats.
The impact
Federal agencies, national security operations, and potentially private sector partners involved in threat response would be affected by new coordination requirements.
Coordinating between agencies can reduce gaps in threat detection. Shared information may help identify security risks faster. This could improve overall national security effectiveness.
A single coordinated approach prevents agencies from working against each other. Consistent strategies across agencies can be more effective. This reduces confusion during security incidents.
Collaboration can reduce duplicate efforts between agencies. Sharing intelligence and resources saves taxpayer money. Agencies can focus on specific roles without overlap.
Established coordination structures enable quicker decisions during crises. Clear communication channels reduce response delays. Faster action can prevent security incidents.
Vague language about 'adversarial threats' could be interpreted too broadly. This might lead to unnecessary investigations or monitoring. Clear definitions are needed to prevent abuse.
More data sharing between agencies could create privacy risks. Without clear oversight, surveillance powers might expand. Rules about protecting citizen data need to be clearly defined.
Creating new coordination systems requires funding and staffing. Training employees on new procedures takes time and money. Long-term budget impacts are unclear.
The bill lacks detailed summary, making its full scope unclear. Without seeing actual language, risks and benefits cannot be fully assessed. Vague bills can lead to unexpected consequences.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.