The bill bars Federal funds beginning in fiscal year 2026 from being used to procure emergency response maps unless the map meets a detailed list of interoperability, format, storage, verification, and distribution requirements. It then instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security (acting through the CISA Director) to produce a strategy within one year to procure compliant maps for federally owned or leased sites designated as critical and to distribute those maps to relevant public safety agencies.
The measure matters because it forces a shift away from proprietary, subscription-locked mapping products toward interoperable, US-hosted, and shareable map files that local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal first responders can access without paywalls. That change affects procurement practices, vendor business models, data security postures, and how maps are shared during emergencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits federal obligations or expenditures for emergency response maps after FY2025 unless maps are open/standard-file formats, hosted in U.S. data centers, printable, integrable with local public-safety software, verified by walkthrough, updatable, and freely available to the procurer and relevant public safety agencies. It also requires CISA to submit a one-year strategy to procure and distribute compliant maps for Federal critical sites and to brief Congress within 180 days of that submission.
Who It Affects
Federal program offices that fund school and facility safety planning, CISA as the implementing agency, SLTT (State, Local, Tribal, Territorial) public-safety agencies that use maps, and private mapping vendors that supply emergency response maps or software integrations.
Why It Matters
The bill operationalizes interoperability and data-localization as procurement conditions, potentially ending federal-funded adoption of closed, subscription-based map products and forcing vendors to support open formats and U.S.-based hosting — a structural shift for emergency-planning technology markets and for interagency information-sharing during incidents.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a bright-line rule for federal spending on emergency response maps: from fiscal year 2026 forward, agencies cannot use federal funds to buy maps unless the maps meet a set of technical, hosting, verification, and sharing conditions. Those conditions are specific: maps must be delivered as a standard or open-source readable file, be hostable only in U.S.-based data centers, be printable and electronically shareable, show true north and coordinate grids, include aerial imagery overlays for floors, label a defined list of features (doors, hallways, key boxes, trauma kits, etc.), be verifiable via an on-site walkthrough, be updateable, and be distributed without subscription fees to the procuring party and to each public-safety agency that serves the site.
The Secretary of Homeland Security — delegated to the Director of CISA — must prepare a strategy within one year that explains how the Federal Government will procure compliant maps for federal-owned or leased sites the Secretary deems 'critical' and how those maps will be distributed to covered public-safety agencies. The bill also requires a congressional briefing 180 days after that strategy is submitted.
The definitions section links the bill’s 'covered public safety agency' to the SLTT definition in the Homeland Security Act, so distribution obligations extend beyond federal responders.Operationally, the law forces federal grant programs and procurements that touch mapping products to include these compliance checkpoints: file-format standards, domestic data residency, software compatibility with local responder systems, and fee-free distribution after purchase. That combination favors vendors who either adopt open formats and U.S. hosting or who rework licensing to permit downstream, subscription-free sharing with first responders.
For procurers, the walkthrough-verification and updateability requirements mean contracts will need clauses on site surveys, change management, and liability for map accuracy. CISA’s forthcoming strategy will determine how aggressively the federal government centralizes procurement for its own properties or relies on grants/technical assistance to extend compliant maps to SLTT partners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans federal funds (FY2026 onward) for procuring emergency response maps unless the map meets ten enumerated technical, storage, verification, and distribution criteria.
The Secretary of Homeland Security (through CISA) must deliver a strategy within one year to procure compliant maps for federally owned or leased sites designated 'critical' and to distribute them to covered public-safety agencies.
Compliant maps must be stored in a data center located inside the United States and be accessible as standard or open-source file formats readable on laptops and mobile devices.
Maps procured with federal funds must be verified by an on-site walkthrough, be updateable, display true north and a coordinate grid, show overlaid aerial imagery of floors, label specific site features, and be printable.
After procurement, the map must be provided without a subscription fee or other restriction to both the procurer and each covered public-safety agency that serves the site.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Uniform School Mapping Act'
This single-line section supplies the Act's public name. Although titled for schools, the operative text does not limit application to educational facilities; the bill’s technical provisions address 'site' broadly (buildings, campuses, facilities), so the title signals focus but does not legally narrow the scope.
Funding prohibition (starting FY2026)
This clause imposes a statutory prohibition on obligating or expending Federal funds to procure emergency response maps for fiscal year 2026 and thereafter, unless an exception applies. Practically, agencies that award grants or contracts for facility mapping must build compliance checks into solicitations and grant conditions to ensure federal dollars do not flow to noncompliant map products.
Exception criteria — technical, hosting, verification, and distribution requirements
This enumerated list is the gate through which any federally funded map must pass. It covers file format accessibility (standard/open-source readers), domestic data-center residency, software integration with covered public-safety agencies, electronic sharing and printing, orientation and coordinate grid display, aerial imagery overlays for floors, a specified minimum set of labeled features, walkthrough verification of accuracy, update capability, and post-purchase fee-free availability to procurer and local responders. Contract language will need to translate each element into deliverables, acceptance tests, and ongoing support obligations (e.g., who performs walkthroughs, cadence for updates, and what 'integrates with' requires for interface specs).
CISA strategy and briefing timelines
The Secretary (CISA Director) must submit a strategy to the listed congressional committees within one year describing how the Federal Government will procure compliant maps for federally owned/leased sites deemed critical and distribute them to covered public-safety agencies. The bill also requires a follow-up briefing 180 days after strategy submission. The strategy is the main implementation vehicle: it will likely spell out prioritization of sites, whether procurement is centralized or delegated, the use of grants or technical assistance to reach SLTT agencies, and standards or frameworks CISA expects to adopt.
Definitions and scope — 'covered public safety agency', 'site', 'emergency response map', 'Secretary'
Definitions connect the bill to existing statutory language: 'covered public safety agency' pulls in the SLTT definition from section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act, thus extending obligations beyond federal first responders. 'Site' is defined broadly as a building, campus, or facility. 'Emergency response map' is defined by intended use (used by covered public-safety agencies during an emergency), which frames applicability. The Secretary term explicitly delegates authority to the CISA Director, concentrating implementation authority in that agency.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- SLTT first responders (state, local, tribal, territorial fire, EMS, and law enforcement): They gain fee-free access to maps procured with federal funds and will receive maps in standard file formats that are easier to ingest into local CAD and incident-management systems.
- Federal facility security staff and emergency managers: Will receive a mandated process for verified, updateable maps for critical federal sites and a federal strategy for procurement and distribution, reducing ad hoc or proprietary-silo risks.
- Entities deploying open-source or standards-compliant mapping tools: Stand to win more federal-funded business because the exception favors standard/open formats and U.S.-hosted data.
- Communities served by federally funded facilities (including schools): Should see more interoperable, printable, and updatable maps available to local responders during incidents, improving on-the-ground response coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- Proprietary mapping vendors that rely on closed formats or subscription syndication models: Face lost federal-funded contracts or pressure to rework licensing and hosting arrangements to meet open-format and U.S.-hosting requirements.
- Federal agencies and CISA: Must absorb implementation costs — updating procurement templates, running walkthrough verification programs, and building the strategy and distribution mechanisms required by the bill.
- SLTT agencies with legacy software ecosystems: May need to invest in integration work or mid-tier adapters so the new, standard-format maps plug into their existing dispatch and CAD systems.
- Cloud and hosting providers with cross-border architectures: Will incur costs to ensure U.S.-only data residency for map files or to offer segregated environments that comply with the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the operational need for broad, subscription-free access to accurate emergency maps (to improve responder coordination and prevent vendor lock-in) against security and risk-management concerns about wider distribution of detailed facility layouts and about the technical and fiscal costs of moving closed, cloud-based systems into U.S.-only hosting and open formats.
The bill tightly prescribes technical and hosting requirements but leaves important operational decisions to CISA’s forthcoming strategy, creating implementation ambiguity. For example, the statute commands that maps be 'available' without subscription to procurers and covered public-safety agencies, but it does not define distribution controls, authentication requirements, or allowable downstream sharing limits — leaving open how to balance access for responders with risk mitigation for sensitive facility layouts.
Similarly, specifying that files be stored in U.S. data centers addresses cross-border risk but does not resolve how to vet subcontractors, manage backups, or handle cloud-native services that replicate data across regions for resilience.
The walkthrough verification and 'integrates with' language are practical but imprecise. The bill does not say who is responsible for verification (vendor, procurer, or an independent auditor), what minimum standards govern verification, or who bears liability if an inaccurate map contributes to an operational failure. 'Integrates with software utilized by any covered public safety agency that serves the site' will require CISA (or contracting officers) to identify which software packages count and to set interface standards — a nontrivial coordination and standards-setting exercise.
Lastly, the title references schools, but the statutory text applies to any 'site' and uses 'critical' as a Secretary-determined label, leaving room for differing interpretations about which facilities are prioritized under the one-year strategy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.