The Pray Safe Act of 2025 directs the Department of Homeland Security to stand up a Federal Clearinghouse on Safety and Security Best Practices for Nonprofit Organizations, Faith-based Organizations, and Houses of Worship. The Clearinghouse must publish evidence-ranked best practices, maintain a searchable index of Federal grants (including required performance metrics), provide training materials and contact points, and support continuous improvement through data collection and periodic updates.
The bill centralizes information and technical assistance that currently sits across multiple agencies and levels of government. For practitioners and compliance officers, the Act creates a single federal portal that can be used to find vetted security recommendations and the grants that can pay for them — but it does not itself appropriate new grant funding and includes a 4-year statutory sunset.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DHS to establish, within 270 days of enactment, an online Clearinghouse that publishes evidence-based tiers of safety and security best practices, offers implementation training materials, and lists Federal and (to the extent practicable) State grant programs with links and required performance metrics. It also specifies a designated DHS point of contact and a process for collecting user feedback and analytics to update the Clearinghouse at least annually.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are nonprofit organizations (501(c) entities) that the Secretary identifies as at risk, faith-based organizations and houses of worship, DHS protective and cyber security advisors, State homeland security advisors, fusion centers, and Federal grant-awarding agencies that must provide program information. Indirectly affected are local law enforcement, congregants, and community stakeholders that rely on these institutions.
Why It Matters
Professionals should note the law creates a federal focal point for best practices and grant navigation — reducing fragmentation in guidance and potentially accelerating the uptake of proven security measures. At the same time, the Clearinghouse could become the de facto source of accepted practices, affecting grant eligibility, liability expectations, and interagency coordination.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Pray Safe Act creates a time-limited, centralized resource inside DHS whose job is to compile, vet, and publish safety and security guidance aimed at nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, and houses of worship. DHS must stand up the Clearinghouse within 270 days and assign staff familiar with both nonprofit operations and physical/online security.
The Clearinghouse's public-facing website will host best-practice guidance, training materials, and a single-index of Federal grant opportunities relevant to implementing those practices.
Rather than issuing generic tips, the Clearinghouse must sort recommendations into evidence-based tiers. Those tiers prioritize interventions supported by at least one well-designed experimental study or one well-implemented quasi-experimental study, while also allowing room for promising practices backed by strong research rationale or positive evaluations.
The site must explain the underlying evidence for each recommended practice so users can judge applicability to their setting.To help users act on the guidance, DHS must provide a designated point of contact, link directly to grant application pages and user guides, and publish the performance metrics expected of grant recipients. The Clearinghouse will solicit user analytics and feedback, coordinate with the Department’s Faith-Based Security Advisory Council, DOJ, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and other agencies, and update its content at least annually.
It is explicitly a resource-provision statute: it catalogs and explains grant programs but does not create new funding streams.The bill also sets an extensive notification requirement — DHS must inform State homeland security advisors, protective and cyber security advisors, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, fusion centers, Governors, and relevant congressional committees about the Clearinghouse and grant updates. Finally, the Act sunsets after four years and requires a GAO report evaluating federal grants and resources devoted to safety and security for the covered organizations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DHS must establish the Clearinghouse within 270 days of enactment and assign at least one designated employee as the public point of contact whose information is posted online.
The Clearinghouse must categorize best practices into evidence-based tiers that prioritize strong evidence from experimental or quasi-experimental studies and document the evidence supporting each recommendation.
The website must include a comprehensive index of Federal grant programs available to eligible nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and houses of worship and list the performance metrics required of grant recipients.
DHS must notify a broad list of partners — including every State homeland security advisor, Protective and Cyber Security Advisors, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Fusion Centers, Governors, and relevant congressional committees — about the Clearinghouse and grant updates.
The Act contains a statutory 4-year sunset for the Clearinghouse and mandates a GAO report on the state of Federal grants and resources for safety and security of nonprofits and houses of worship.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the 'Pray Safe Act of 2025.' This is purely titular but signals the statute’s focused purpose on safety and security for faith-based and nonprofit institutions.
Key definitions
Defines critical terms used throughout the statute — Clearinghouse, Department (DHS), faith-based organization, house of worship, nonprofit organization (cross-referenced to section 501(c)(3) types), safety and security, and Secretary. Notably, the definition of 'nonprofit organization' adds a Secretary-determined risk qualifier; DHS therefore retains discretion to identify which nonprofits fall within the Clearinghouse’s target population.
Establishment, purpose, and staffing of the Clearinghouse
Requires DHS to create the Clearinghouse within 270 days and describes its dual mission: publish best practices and provide information on Federal grants. The Secretary must assign personnel and can accept detailees; at least one staffer must serve as the designated public point of contact. Practically, that creates a low-bar staffing obligation but leaves the Secretary discretion over resources and whether staff are reimbursable detailees or permanent assignments.
Evidence-based tiers and content requirements
Directs DHS to develop tiers for best practices that prioritize experimental and quasi-experimental evidence while allowing for promising practices supported by research. The Clearinghouse must offer detailed criteria for recommendations (event planning, facility hardening, tabletop exercises, etc.), include supporting evidence and prior federal/state/private research, and maintain a searchable index of Federal grants including each grant’s required performance metrics. Those mechanics will determine whether a recommendation is labeled 'proven' or 'promising' and will influence grant guidance and implementation priorities.
Assistance, training, continuous improvement, and reporting
Authorizes DHS to produce training materials and requires continuous improvement mechanisms: collection of analytics, user feedback, and evaluations. DHS must coordinate with the Faith-Based Security Advisory Council, DOJ, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and other agencies to identify gaps in available resources and propose additional recommendations. The Secretary must review and update the Clearinghouse at least annually and submit a report to Congress every three years on changes made during the prior period.
Notifications, grants overview, and other resources
Obligates DHS to notify a wide network of State and Federal actors (State homeland security advisors, Protective/Cyber Security Advisors, Fusion Centers, FBI JTTFs, Governors, and congressional committees) about the Clearinghouse. Requires the site to centralize Federal grant information with direct links and application guidance, invites State submissions for State-level programs, and mandates a separate directory of contact points (e.g., Protective Security Advisors, Fusion Centers) and promotional materials like the 'If You See Something Say Something' campaign.
Legal limits, sunset, and GAO evaluation
Contains a rule of construction preserving existing federal civil rights obligations (e.g., ADA Title II and Title VI) and clarifies the Clearinghouse does not alter those requirements. The Act terminates 4 years after enactment. Separately, Section 4 requires the GAO to report to Congress on the state of Federal grants and an evaluation of programs and resources devoted to safety and security for the covered organizations.
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
- Houses of worship and faith-based organizations — gain a single federal portal with vetted, evidence-ranked guidance, practical implementation materials, and direct links to applicable Federal grants and contact points, reducing search costs and duplicative outreach.
- Small and at-risk nonprofit organizations — can use the Clearinghouse to identify prioritized practices and the specific grants and performance metrics that support implementation, which can help with planning and competitive grant applications.
- State and local homeland security advisors and Fusion Centers — receive centralized information and notification that can improve coordination and reduce the burden of individually supporting many congregations or nonprofits.
- Grant program managers and compliance officers — benefit from a consolidated index of grants and standardized information on expected performance metrics, which can streamline oversight and technical assistance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security — must staff, maintain, and update the Clearinghouse and absorb the administrative burden of interagency coordination and notifications without dedicated new appropriations in the text.
- Federal agencies and program offices — must supply program information, links, and performance metrics for inclusion in the Clearinghouse, increasing interagency workload for grant offices and program managers.
- Nonprofit and faith-based organizations — while they gain guidance, many will face implementation costs if they follow recommendations and may need to meet performance metrics to obtain or maintain grant funding.
- State and local governments — asked to provide program details and to be part of coordination; smaller State offices may need to reallocate time to respond and supply resources for inclusion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a federal, centralized clearinghouse can improve safety by reducing fragmentation and directing scarce grant dollars to evidence-backed practices without creating unfunded mandates, uneven access, and de facto regulatory standards for religious and nonprofit institutions. Helping these organizations prepare for and respond to threats requires clear guidance and coordination, but doing so risks imposing expectations or administrative burdens that small congregations and nonprofits may not be able to meet.
The statute centralizes guidance but does not create or fund new grant programs; it catalogues existing Federal and (optionally) State resources. That creates a gap: organizations will see recommended security improvements and linked grant opportunities but may still face unfunded implementation needs if program funds are limited or highly competitive.
The Clearinghouse’s reliance on evidence tiers elevates interventions backed by rigorous studies, which are sparse in many security domains; practical, low-cost measures commonly used by houses of worship might be classified as 'promising' rather than 'proven,' complicating prioritization for cash-strapped groups.
The bill leaves several implementation variables to the Secretary’s discretion: which nonprofits are 'determined to be at risk'; how many staff and what expertise are assigned to the Clearinghouse; and the degree to which State programs are included. Those delegations create variability in access and responsiveness across States and communities.
There is also a legal and reputational tension: publishing recommended practices and listing performance metrics could, over time, create de facto standards that affect liability expectations for congregations and nonprofits, especially if insurers or courts reference Clearinghouse guidance in negligence contexts. Finally, data collection for continuous improvement raises privacy and incident-reporting questions that the bill does not resolve (scope of analytics, data retention, and protections for sensitive information).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.