The SHARE Act authorizes the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to furnish criminal history record information to a State licensing authority. This is done through an agreement with a State law enforcement agency or State Identification Bureau, for the purpose of conducting criminal history background checks of individuals seeking licenses or privileges to practice occupations in a compact member state.
The bill also amends Subtitle E of Title VI of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, adding Section 6404, which sets the framework for sharing, use, and definitions around CHRI in this interstate licensing context.
Under Section 6404, a State licensing authority in a compact member state may obtain CHRI from the FBI, subject to the constraints laid out in the subsection. The State licensing authority must use the information solely for licensing purposes and is prohibited from sharing CHRI with the compact’s Commission, other state entities, or the public, except that the completion status of the background check (including a binary determination) may be shared explicitly.
The definitions establish the scope of terms like Commission, CHRI, license, privilege, State, State Identification Bureau, and State Licensing Authority to ensure uniform understanding across participating jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the FBI to provide CHRI to a State licensing authority via intergovernmental agreements, for background checks tied to occupational licenses or privileges in compact member states.
Who It Affects
State licensing authorities, state enforcement agencies or identification bureaus, interstate compact commissions, and individuals seeking licensure across member states.
Why It Matters
It creates a cross-state licensing verification pathway, reducing duplicative checks and enabling reciprocal license considerations while constraining data sharing to defined channels.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SHARE Act introduces a dedicated mechanism to move criminal history information from the FBI to state licensing authorities when evaluating residents who want to practice in a different state that participates in the same interstate licensing compact. The central idea is to enable a standardized background-check process across states that are bound by a compact, with the FBI serving as the source of CHRI under an interagency agreement framework.
The act specifies that license-issuing bodies may use CHRI only for licensure purposes and may not disclose the data beyond the scope of the compact, except for sharing the fact that a background check has been completed or resulted in a determination of suitability. The definitions section clarifies who is involved and what counts as CHRI, a license, a privilege, and which agencies participate in carrying out these checks.
Practically, this means a professional applying for a license in a compact member state could have a background check process streamlined through a single CHRI submission, rather than initiating separate checks in each state. The framework also ensures that CHRI is treated as sensitive information, with strict limitations on disclosure, reinforcing how interjurisdictional licensing operates under the compact system.
Implementers will need to coordinate between FBI, state law enforcement or identification agencies, and licensing authorities to maintain data integrity and privacy controls while enabling faster licensure across borders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 6404 to the IRTPA, creating a formal CHRI sharing mechanism for inter-state licensing.
FBI must furnish CHRI to State licensing authorities through agreements with State enforcement agencies or State Identification Bureaus.
State licensing authorities may use CHRI solely for licensing purposes and may not share CHRI with non-parties or the public.
The completion status of a background check, including a binary determination, may be explicitly shared with the compact Commission.
Key terms like Commission, CHRI, License, Privilege, State, and State Licensing Authority are defined to standardize interpretation across participating states.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Section 1 establishes the Act’s official name, the SHARE Act of 2025, and sets the framing for how it will be cited in law and administrative actions.
CHRI Sharing for Interstate Licensing
Section 2 authorizes the sharing and use of criminal history record information, establishing the broad mechanism by which FBI CHRI will be made available to state licensing authorities for the purpose of conducting background checks on license applicants within a compact member state, and it sets the initial constraints on how those checks are used and shared.
Sharing and Use of Criminal History Record Information
Section 6404, the substantive provision added to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, specifies that the FBI shall furnish CHRI to a State licensing authority through an agreement with a state law enforcement agency or identification bureau, for background checks tied to licensing in a member state. It also limits the use of CHRI to licensing purposes and governs how sharing may occur between state actors and compact mechanisms.
Federal CHRI Provision for Licensing
This subsection requires the FBI to provide CHRI to a State licensing authority, as needed to perform a criminal history background check in the context of an interstate compact’s licensing framework, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b).
Prohibition on Sharing CHRI by Licensing Authorities
State licensing authorities that are members of an interstate compact may use CHRI solely for the licensing purposes and may not disclose any CHRI or parts of it to the compact’s Commission, other state entities, or the public.
Permitted Sharing of Completion Information
This subsection permits a state licensing authority to inform the compact Commission about the completion of the CHRI background check, including the binary result, without constituting a sharing of CHRI.
Definitions
Section 6404 provides definitions for Commission, Criminal History Information, License, Privilege, State, State Identification Bureau, and State Licensing Authority, establishing the actors, data types, and scope involved in these cross-state licensing checks.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State licensing authorities in compact member states gain a standardized data source and a streamlined process for background checks across states, reducing duplicative efforts and accelerating licensure decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- FBI bears the cost and operational responsibility of furnishing CHRI under interagency agreements.
- State licensing authorities must implement the data-sharing arrangements and privacy controls, including governance and IT interfaces.
- Interstate compact commissions incur oversight and coordination costs to align participating states' processes.
- Applicants seeking multi-state licensure face privacy considerations and the need to manage CHRI in a cross-border context.
- State enforcement agencies or State Identification Bureaus absorb the administrative burden of facilitating CHRI transfers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is balancing efficient, reciprocal licensing across states through CHRI sharing with robust privacy protections, accurate data handling, and enforceable accountability across multiple agencies and jurisdictions.
The bill creates a pathway for cross-state licensing through CHRI sharing, but it raises questions about privacy protections, data governance, and accountability across multiple jurisdictions. The reliance on interstate compacts means that coverage depends on which states participate, and the quality and interoperability of data systems will strongly influence practical implementation.
The statute constrains sharing to specific channels, yet the real-world risk of data breaches, misclassification of criminal history, or scope drift remains a concern that needs ongoing monitoring. Since CHRI can be sensitive and historic, any expansion of its use to licensing contexts warrants clear safeguards and transparent redress mechanisms for individuals who believe their records were mishandled or misinterpreted.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.