This bill inserts a new Section 710A into the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to create a Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program inside the office overseen by DHS’s Chief Medical Officer. The Program is charged with setting policies and standard operating procedures, conducting research and data collection on suicides and mental health, evaluating existing component programs, and coordinating training and peer-to-peer support across DHS law enforcement components.
The measure matters because it moves DHS from a patchwork of component-level efforts to a centralized framework intended to standardize training, peer support, and measurement. It also requires confidential data collection and program evaluation that could change how DHS components identify risk, fund services, and measure progress on preventing suicide and improving resiliency among officers, agents, and their families.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a Department-wide Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program under the Chief Medical Officer, tasked with policy-setting, research and data collection, program evaluation, and promoting training and peer support. It creates a Peer-to-Peer Support Program Advisory Council, directs component-level improvements, and requires confidential reporting of suicide incidents to a national data program.
Who It Affects
The statute explicitly covers DHS law enforcement components — including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Secret Service, TSA, the OIG, and any other DHS component with law enforcement officers or agents — and extends services to families and surviving families. It also involves component leadership, peer-support personnel, agency clinicians, privacy officials, and exclusive representatives where applicable.
Why It Matters
By centralizing policy and measurement, the bill sets a precedent for how a large federal department addresses officer mental health at scale, balancing confidentiality and data-driven prevention. Compliance officers, program managers, and DHS leadership should expect new mandatory directives, inter-component coordination requirements, and periodic briefings to congressional committees.
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 new statutory Program—called the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program—housed in the office overseen by the DHS Chief Medical Officer. The Program’s responsibilities include writing policies and standard operating procedures grounded in evidence-based practices; collecting and analyzing data on suicides and attempted suicides (subject to federal privacy and nondisclosure rules); tracking leading practices from other organizations; and evaluating the effectiveness of component-level mental health and resiliency programs.
A core operational feature is a Peer-to-Peer Support Program Advisory Council. The council must include, for each DHS component, at least one licensed clinician and at least one trained peer-support official.
The council’s job is to evaluate component peer-support programs, identify gaps, share best practices (including internationally recognized standards), create a cross-component peer-support network to share trained personnel and chaplains, and support ongoing training and refresher resources so peer supporters remain prepared and protected.The bill also sets staffing and management expectations. The Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator—operating under the Chief Medical Officer—will manage the Program.
The statute requires the Secretary, subject to appropriations, to staff the Program at levels the Chief Medical Officer deems necessary and to include representatives from each DHS component plus the Office of the Chief Privacy Officer. The Chief Medical Officer must issue a directive defining roles and responsibilities and distribute it across components within a statutory timeframe.At the component level, the statute obligates heads of DHS components to prioritize mental health and resiliency programs: allocate adequate resources, reduce stigma through messaging and training, provide multiple confidential avenues for seeking care (including external clinicians and service animals), and review policies that unintentionally discourage help-seeking.
It requires in-person or live interactive virtual suicide awareness and resiliency training at defined touchpoints — onboarding, annually, transition to supervisory roles, and, where feasible, before an employee leaves — and it explicitly calls for support services for families and survivors.On measurement and oversight, the Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator must develop assessment criteria, run annual confidential surveys that establish baselines and measure change over time, and may use contractors for support. Components must report suicide incidents to the Coordinator, who forwards relevant information to the national Law Enforcement Officers Suicide Data Collection Program.
Finally, the Chief Medical Officer must brief the relevant Homeland Security committees within six months of enactment and annually through fiscal year 2027 about implementation progress.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates Section 710A in the Homeland Security Act and places the new Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program within the office overseen by DHS’s Chief Medical Officer, managed day-to-day by a Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator.
It requires a Peer-to-Peer Support Program Advisory Council with at least one licensed clinician and at least one peer-support-trained official from each DHS component; the council must enable sharing of peer personnel and fund annual and refresher training.
The Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator must develop effectiveness criteria and conduct annual confidential surveys of DHS law enforcement officers and agents to establish baselines and measure change over time, and may use contractors to assist.
The Chief Medical Officer must issue and distribute a directive outlining Program roles and responsibilities within 180 days of enactment, and must brief the House and Senate Homeland Security committees within 180 days and annually through FY2027 on implementation.
Component heads must adopt policies that provide multiple, anonymous avenues for mental health care, prohibit adverse action or automatic fitness-for-duty exams solely because an officer seeks counseling, and require in-person or live interactive resiliency training at onboarding, annually, supervisory transition, and, if feasible, pre-termination.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — which DHS entities the law covers
This subsection defines 'Department components' to make clear the statute applies not only to traditional law enforcement entities (CBP, ICE, Secret Service, TSA) but also to the Office of the Inspector General and any other DHS unit that employs law enforcement officers or agents. Naming the OIG and 'any other' component avoids disputes about coverage and forces component heads to treat the statute as department-wide rather than optional guidance.
Establishes the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program and lists core duties
This is the statute’s operational heart: it directs the Secretary to set up a centralized Program within the CMO’s office to write policies, collect and analyze data, evaluate existing programs, track best practices, and promote training and stigma-reduction. Practically, this elevates mental health policy from component-level initiatives to a centralized authority that writes standards and drives department-wide practice changes.
Peer-to-Peer Support Advisory Council and peer support network
The bill mandates an advisory council that includes licensed clinicians and peer-support-trained officials from each component and charges it with evaluating peer programs, identifying gaps, and creating a cross-component peer-support network. The council’s powers extend to enabling sharing of trained peer personnel, chaplains, and resources—an important operational tool for smaller components that lack trained personnel—and it explicitly funds ongoing training and refresher courses for peer supporters.
Confidentiality rules, staffing, and coordination
The statute imposes strict confidentiality limits: no publication of personally identifiable information and use of PII only for implementing the section, subject to the Privacy Act and nondisclosure statutes. Management responsibility goes to a Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator under the CMO, and the Secretary must staff the Program with personnel the CMO deems necessary (subject to appropriations) and include privacy office representation. The CMO must assign at least one official from each component to the Program to coordinate with field points of contact—an explicit bridge between headquarters policy and field implementation.
Component obligations on resources, training, and non‑retaliation
Heads of DHS components must prioritize mental health programs: allocate resources, reduce stigma, provide multiple confidential avenues for care (including external clinicians and service animals), and revise policies that deter help-seeking. Importantly, the statute requires safeguards against adverse action—including protections against automatic referrals for fitness-for-duty exams based solely on self-identification or seeking counseling—and mandates in-person or live interactive suicide awareness and resiliency training at onboarding, annually, on supervisory transitions, and, where feasible, before termination.
Data collection, evaluation, reporting, and briefings to Congress
The Coordinator must develop criteria to assess program effectiveness and run annual confidential surveys that establish baselines and measure changes over time; components must report suicide incidents to the Coordinator, who forwards that information to the national Law Enforcement Officers Suicide Data Collection Program. The Chief Medical Officer must provide briefings to the House and Senate Homeland Security committees within 180 days and annually through FY2027, creating a defined oversight cadence during the statute’s initial implementation phase.
Table of contents update
The bill also amends the Homeland Security Act’s table of contents to insert the new Section 710A. That is a technical step required to reflect the statutory addition in the act’s organizational structure, and it signals that the new Program is intended as a permanent statutory element of the Department’s health and wellness architecture.
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
- DHS law enforcement officers and agents (CBP, ICE, Secret Service, TSA, OIG, and others) — gain standardized access to training, peer support networks, external clinician options, and reduced stigma through department-wide messaging and policy changes.
- Families and surviving families of DHS officers — receive eligibility for prevention, resiliency programming, and dedicated support after a loss to suicide, a protection the bill explicitly includes.
- Peer-support personnel, chaplains, and agency mental health clinicians — get funded training, refresher resources, and a cross-component network that improves capacity, credentialing, and mutual-aid options.
- Program managers, CMO staff, and researchers — receive standardized data, assessment criteria, and annual survey results to measure program effectiveness and guide resource allocation and policy adjustments.
- Congressional oversight and policymakers — receive regular briefings and department-level data flow that support informed legislative and budgetary decisions regarding officer wellness.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS components and their budgets — must fund trainings, peer-support programs, staff time, and any external clinician contracts; the statute’s staffing requirements are subject to appropriations but create new baseline expectations.
- Chief Medical Officer’s office and the Workplace Health and Wellness Coordinator — face new administrative and coordination burdens, including data handling, council management, and cross-component liaison duties.
- Office of the Chief Privacy Officer and component privacy teams — must review data practices, ensure compliance with the Privacy Act and Rehabilitation Act, and manage confidentiality safeguards for surveys and incident reports.
- Exclusive representatives and labor negotiators — will incur negotiation and implementation costs where changes to policy, training schedules, or peer-support roles intersect with collective bargaining agreements.
- Contractors and external clinicians — may need to expand capacity or adapt credentialing and confidentiality practices to accommodate cross-component referral networks and anonymity requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting individual confidentiality to encourage officers to seek help and the government’s need for actionable data and oversight to prevent deaths and measure program effectiveness; centralized standards improve consistency but require cross-component data flows and staffing that may strain budgets and clash with component autonomy and collective bargaining constraints.
The bill balances confidentiality with the need for data, but the statutory limits on personally identifiable information create practical questions about how granular analyses will be performed. The statute ties data collection to existing nondisclosure regimes (the Privacy Act and sections 552/552a), which protects individuals but could limit the Program’s ability to link outcomes to specific operational variables (assignment, deployment cycles, or unit-level stressors) without careful design of de-identification and aggregation protocols.
Staffing and funding are deliberately qualified by 'subject to appropriations' language for minimum core personnel, so the statute creates programmatic expectations without guaranteeing funding. That raises an implementation risk: mandates for training, cross-component personnel sharing, and annual surveys will require sustained budget and personnel commitments across components with different budgets and priorities.
Finally, the bill’s anti-retaliation language forbids adverse action 'solely' for help-seeking, but it does not remove management’s ability to act where there are legitimate, documented safety concerns; distinguishing protected help-seeking from performance or safety triggers will require clear operational rules and training for supervisors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.