Gio’s Law adds a new grant program to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to expand law enforcement access to epinephrine products and training. The Justice Department will supply or identify training materials, administer grants to states and localities, and run a coordinated public-awareness campaign.
The bill aims to shorten time-to-treatment for anaphylaxis by placing epinephrine within the reach of first responders and by creating standardized training and nationwide reporting on when officers use these products. It also conditions grant awards on legal protections in the applicant jurisdiction.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Attorney General may award grants to states and local governments to buy epinephrine products for law enforcement and to support officer training using curricula developed or identified by DOJ. The statute also requires a DOJ–HHS public outreach effort and an annual dataset on officer administration of epinephrine compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Who It Affects
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies that want to carry and administer epinephrine; chief executives of states and local units who apply for grants; state attorneys general who must verify legal protections; and federal agencies (DOJ, HHS, BJS) that administer training, outreach, and reporting.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts some immediate anaphylaxis response capacity onto law enforcement while creating a single federal touchpoint for training and data collection. For compliance officers and agency leaders, it creates a new grant-reliant program with legal-certification requirements and public-reporting obligations to budget for and manage.
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 distinct part in the existing federal crime-control statute that establishes a DOJ-administered grant program. Eligible applicants are states and local governments; applications come from the chief executive of the jurisdiction and must meet information requirements the Attorney General prescribes.
Grants may be used to obtain epinephrine products for officers and to pay for training tied to DOJ-approved curricula.
The Attorney General must either develop or identify effective training curricula and make those materials available to grantees. The curricula are narrowly focused on two operational tasks: recognizing anaphylactic reactions and correctly administering epinephrine products.
DOJ’s role is primarily standard-setting and fund distribution; actual implementation — buying devices, running training sessions, maintaining inventory and protocols — will sit with recipient jurisdictions and their law enforcement agencies.The bill also directs federal agencies to increase public awareness about anaphylaxis symptoms and to clarify the role of law enforcement in administering epinephrine. Separately, the Bureau of Justice Statistics must collect and publish annual data on how often law enforcement at every level administers epinephrine products, creating a new national dataset that policymakers and program managers can use to evaluate program reach and clinical impact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must develop or identify training curricula for officers within 180 days of enactment, focused on recognizing anaphylaxis and administering epinephrine products.
Grants authorized under the new part may be used both to purchase epinephrine products for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and to fund officer training tied to the DOJ curricula.
An application for a grant must include a certification from the State attorney general (or the State containing the unit of local government) that officers authorized to administer epinephrine in that jurisdiction are protected from civil liability.
The statutory definition of “epinephrine product” covers epinephrine auto‑injectors and also products that facilitate epinephrine administration other than by injection.
The statute authorizes $25,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the program (authorization, not an appropriation).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the public name “Gio’s Law.” This is ceremonial but is the reference name for any administrative or regulatory guidance that follows.
Grant authorization and permitted uses
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to states and units of local government. The text limits grant purposes to (a) purchasing epinephrine products for state, local, and tribal law enforcement and (b) training officers consistent with DOJ curricula. Practical implication: federal funds are tied to procurement and training only, not broader EMS or health-system costs; recipients will need internal controls to separate grant‑funded activity from other emergency-response budgets.
Standardized training requirement
Directs DOJ to produce or endorse training materials and requires that curricula teach two operational competencies: recognizing anaphylaxis and correctly administering epinephrine products. Agencies should expect a federally standardized baseline of instruction they must adopt if they take grant money; DOJ may permit use of existing curricula if it deems them effective.
Application and legal-certification condition
Specifies that the chief executive of the state or local unit files grant applications with information the Attorney General requires and that the application include a certification from the State attorney general (or State) that officers authorized to give epinephrine are shielded from civil liability. That certification condition makes award decisions contingent on the applicant’s legal environment and may force jurisdictions to adjust statutes or policies before receiving funds.
Definition of epinephrine product
Defines covered devices to include epinephrine auto‑injectors and devices that facilitate epinephrine delivery by other routes. This is deliberately broad to allow non‑injectable technologies; procurement officers should read the definition when selecting approved devices to ensure eligibility.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $25 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to carry out the new part. The language is an authorization: Congress still must appropriate funds for the program to expend them. Grantees and federal program staff should plan against both the authorization ceiling and the reality that annual appropriations may differ.
Annual BJS reporting requirement
Requires the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to publish annual data on how often federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers administer epinephrine products. That creates a recurring data mandate with implications for incident reporting, recordkeeping, and possible non‑medical audits of use rates.
Interagency public awareness campaign
Instructs DOJ, working with HHS, to design and run a public campaign to educate people about anaphylaxis symptoms and the role of officers and first responders in administering epinephrine. This elevates public expectations of police as medical first responders and will require coordination between public‑health messaging and law‑enforcement outreach.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- Individuals experiencing anaphylaxis — Faster access to epinephrine in locations without immediate EMS arrival can reduce time to treatment where law enforcement are present.
- Law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions that receive grants — Direct access to devices and federally vetted training reduces procurement barriers and creates a standardized training baseline.
- Epinephrine product manufacturers and suppliers — New, federally supported purchasing streams and broadened device definitions may expand public‑sector demand for injectors and alternative delivery systems.
- Public‑health agencies and researchers — The new BJS dataset creates an empirical basis to evaluate non‑EMS administration of epinephrine and inform policy adjustments.
- Jurisdictions seeking to standardize first‑responder medical interventions — Federal curricula provide an off‑the‑shelf training option that jurisdictions can adopt without building programs from scratch.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government/taxpayers — Congress must appropriate funds against the authorization; program operations and grants will be federal expenditures if appropriated.
- State and local governments that apply — Even with grants, jurisdictions absorb administrative overhead, long‑term supply replacement costs once grants expire, and potential training-maintenance expenses.
- Law enforcement agencies — Agencies will need to create protocols, supervise storage and replacement of medical devices, and track administration events for reporting requirements.
- Department of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics — DOJ must build or vet curricula and administer grants; BJS must collect, standardize, and publish annual data, increasing federal administrative load.
- Legal systems and insurers — If jurisdictions change statutory liability shields to qualify for grants, insurers, and court systems may face shifted risk allocation and litigation dynamics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves a public‑health gap by empowering police to provide immediate, lifesaving treatment, but it does so by further medicalizing law enforcement duties and tying program participation to state legal regimes — forcing a trade‑off between rapid access to care and concerns about scope of practice, liability, and uneven implementation across jurisdictions.
The bill pairs a public‑health objective with a law‑enforcement delivery model, but it leaves several implementation questions open. The certification requirement ties grant eligibility to each State’s liability regime; the statute does not specify what form that protection must take, whether a statutory shield is required, or how to reconcile differing standards across States.
That creates a sequencing issue: jurisdictions may need to change law or policy before disbursal, delaying access in places that might need it most.
Measurement and accountability also raise concerns. The BJS reporting mandate creates a new national metric, but the statute does not define reporting formats, thresholds for inclusion, or quality controls.
Underreporting and inconsistent recordkeeping across agencies could limit the usefulness of the dataset. Finally, the authorization of funding is time‑limited and capped; if demand concentrates in large or high‑need urban jurisdictions, smaller or rural areas may lose out without targeted allocation rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.