The bill amends Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act to require institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to include a detailed anti‑harassment policy and reporting in the institutional disclosures they already provide. The policy must cover harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (broadly defined), disability, and religion and explicitly reach conduct that occurs on campus, in residence halls, at institution‑sponsored activities, through institution systems, and via off‑campus electronic messaging and commercial mobile services.
Separately, the bill authorizes a competitive anti‑harassment grant program run by the Department of Education to fund prevention, counseling, redress services, and training at colleges and consortia. It requires program evaluations, an annual best‑practices report based on scientific evidence, and appropriates funds to run the program over multiple years.
The Act also makes clear its obligations are in addition to existing civil‑rights statutes such as Title VI, Title IX, and the ADA.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires federally participating colleges to publish a comprehensive anti‑harassment policy in their institutional disclosures and to report on patterns of harassment and institutional responses; expands statutory definitions to cover electronic messaging, commercial mobile services, and electronic communications. Establishes a competitive grant program to fund prevention, counseling, and training at institutions.
Who It Affects
All U.S. institutions of higher education that participate in federal student aid programs, their compliance and student affairs units, counseling centers, IT/security departments, and students (including victims and those accused). The Department of Education will administer grants and reporting.
Why It Matters
This inserts a federal disclosure and reporting floor into institutional practice and brings online/off‑campus digital conduct explicitly within institutions’ anti‑harassment frameworks. The grant program both channels federal money into prevention and creates a centralized evaluation and best‑practices resource for campuses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act changes the existing institutional disclosure requirement in the Higher Education Act so that each college receiving federal student aid must include, in the standard institutional report, a clear statement of policy prohibiting harassment against students on enumerated protected characteristics. That statement must explain where the prohibition applies—on campus, in residence halls, on public property, in institution‑issued email or networks, during institution‑sponsored activities, and when harassment is carried out using electronic messaging services or commercial mobile services.
The amendment also inserts statutory definitions for terms like commercial mobile service and electronic communication to make clear the policy reaches modern communication channels.
Beyond prohibitions, the required statement must describe prevention programs, grievance procedures a student should follow, the institution’s response procedures after a report, possible sanctions, available counseling and mental‑health resources, and the identity of the designated employee or office responsible for receiving and tracking harassment reports. Institutions must also include a 'detailed description' of each occasion where a pattern of harassment has occurred and what actions the institution took, creating a new institutional reporting obligation tied to patterns rather than just single incidents.The Act creates a separate competitive grant program in the Department of Education.
Eligible applicants are individual institutions or state‑based consortia; grants are intended to initiate or expand programs that prevent harassment, provide counseling or redress, or train students, faculty, and staff on prevention and response. Grants are time‑limited with a maximum initial award period of three years and a single renewal of up to two years.
Grantees must evaluate program effectiveness, report results to the Secretary, and the Secretary must compile annual information for Congress and publish an evidence‑based best practices report for all institutions.Finally, the Act clarifies that nothing in it displaces rights or procedures under Title VI, Title IX, the Rehabilitation Act, or the ADA; rather, the new obligations are additions to existing civil‑rights obligations. That means campuses must operate under this disclosure and grant framework while still complying with those other federal statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The amendment to HEA Section 485(f) forces participating institutions to include a written anti‑harassment policy in their institutional disclosures that addresses online and off‑campus electronic messaging and commercial mobile services.
Institutions must provide a detailed description of each occasion where a 'pattern of harassment' occurred and state the actions the institution took in response—creating a recurring reporting obligation tied to patterns, not just isolated incidents.
The policy must identify a designated employee or office to receive and track every harassment report and must promise timely institutional action and notification of outcomes to both accuser and accused.
The Department of Education will run a competitive grant program that awards grants of up to 3 years, with one possible 2‑year renewal, for prevention, counseling/redress, or training programs at colleges and consortia.
Congress authorized $50,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2031 for the anti‑harassment grant program and requires the Secretary to publish an annual, evidence‑based best practices report.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the 'Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti‑Harassment Act of 2025.' This is purely titular but signals the bill’s focus and intent to link disclosure, prevention, and support measures for student harassment.
Disclosure requirement: required anti‑harassment policy and reporting
Substantially revises the institutional and financial assistance disclosure provision to require a statement of policy covering harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (expressly including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and related conditions, stereotypes, and sex characteristics), disability, and religion. The provision prescribes content the policy must include: where the prohibition applies (campus, noncampus, public property, residence halls, institution systems, institution‑sponsored activities), prevention programs, complaint and response procedures, possible sanctions, counseling resources, and the designated reporting office. Practically, this transforms an informational disclosure into a minimum campus operational standard that must be publicized with the institution’s regular report.
Statutory definitions to reach modern communications
Adds definitions for 'commercial mobile service,' 'electronic communication,' and 'electronic messaging services' by reference to existing communications statutes. That drafting choice ties the HEA disclosure duty to established federal communications terms and extends the policy’s coverage to harassment conducted through mobile carriers, messaging platforms, and other electronic transfers, making clear campuses must address harassment that uses third‑party digital services.
Anti‑harassment competitive grant program
Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to single institutions or state consortia to initiate, expand, or improve prevention, counseling/redress, and training programs aimed at the enumerated harassment categories. The bill sets grant length (up to 3 years, plus a one‑time 2‑year renewal), requires applications as the Secretary prescribes, and directs award consideration toward applicants demonstrating the greatest need and potential benefit.
Program evaluation, reporting to Congress, and best practices
Requires grantees to evaluate program effectiveness within six months after the grant period and to report those findings to the Secretary. The Secretary must compile annual reports to congressional education committees listing grantees, program types and costs, and other data useful for judging program success. The Secretary must also publish an evidence‑based best‑practices report, explicitly grounded in scientific research meeting 'nationally recognized standards,' and make it available to all institutions.
Effect on other laws
Clarifies that the new obligations do not replace or limit remedies and procedures under existing federal civil‑rights statutes—Title VI, Title IX, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA. The Act expressly states its duties are in addition to those statutes, which has implications for institutions that must now map multiple, potentially overlapping compliance paths.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education 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
- Students who experience harassment — They gain a standardized disclosure of institutional protections and explicit coverage for harassment occurring via mobile and electronic messaging channels, plus clearer complaint and response procedures.
- Campus mental‑health and counseling services — The bill channels federal grant dollars toward expanding counseling and redress services that these units provide, supporting capacity building.
- Institutions seeking funding for prevention programs — Colleges and consortia can apply for dedicated federal grants to pilot or scale prevention, training, and redress programs without relying solely on internal budgets.
- Researchers and policymakers — The mandated evaluations and an evidence‑based best practices report create centralized, comparable data and vetted intervention models for broader dissemination.
Who Bears the Cost
- Institutional compliance offices and student affairs units — They must draft or revise policies, identify reporting officers, track allegations and 'patterns' of harassment, and produce the required disclosures and incident descriptions, which will consume staff time and resources.
- IT and records teams — The extension to electronic messaging and commercial mobile services creates technical and legal challenges for collecting, preserving, and analyzing evidence, potentially requiring new tools or vendor agreements.
- Department of Education — The Department must administer competitive grants, evaluate grantee results, compile reports for Congress, and prepare a national best‑practices document, increasing federal administrative responsibilities.
- Smaller institutions with limited budgets — Although grant money is available, institutions without grant awards still must meet disclosure and reporting requirements, representing an unfunded or underfunded compliance cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill aims to protect students by expanding institutional responsibility to cover online and off‑campus harassment, but it forces institutions and the federal government to balance broad protective reach against privacy, procedural fairness, and resource limits—extending authority to address harms while creating uncertain boundaries and additional administrative burdens.
The Act pushes campuses to treat certain off‑campus and digital conduct as part of their anti‑harassment responsibilities, but it leaves key operational questions unresolved. The statutory requirement to include a 'detailed description' of each occasion where a pattern of harassment occurred creates a reporting obligation that intersects with student privacy (FERPA), investigatory confidentiality, and possible ongoing law enforcement activity.
Institutions will need policies to redact sensitive information while satisfying the disclosure language; the bill does not provide guidance on balancing those duties.
The definition strategy borrows communications terms from other federal statutes to capture electronic and mobile channels, but it does not address practical limits on institutions’ ability to obtain third‑party provider data or the constitutional and statutory restraints on disciplining off‑campus speech. The grant program funds prevention and evaluation, but appropriations are finite and the Secretary’s role in selecting 'greatest need' applicants raises questions about consistent geographic and institutional distribution.
Finally, the bill layers new disclosure requirements atop Title IX, Title VI, and disability law obligations without prescribing how institutions should reconcile potentially different standards, timelines, or evidentiary requirements across overlapping processes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.