Codify — Article

Operational Security Act of 2025: EOP Security Training Office

Establishes a dedicated Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence within the Executive Office of the President to train staff, counter threats, and protect classified information.

The Brief

The bill would create the Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and appoint a Director at its head, with the initial appointment due within 30 days of enactment and subject to Senate advice and consent. The Director must be a recognized security expert with expertise in cybersecurity, physical security, or counterintelligence, and must be eligible to access Top Secret/SCI information.

Staff for the Office would come from career security and counterintelligence professionals detailed from federal agencies, with potential additional detailees from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to assist in carrying out its functions. The Office would focus on three core areas: security training and education; counterintelligence and insider-threat activities; and protection of classified information, including guidance on safeguarding information and collaboration with the National Archives and Records Administration.Separately, the bill creates the Security Training and Counterintelligence Advisory Board, a bipartisan, four-member panel appointed by congressional party leaders, to provide best-practice guidance on training, counterintelligence, insider-threat awareness, and information protection.

The Board would report annually to the congressional intelligence committees and elect a Chair at its first meeting, with the Chair prohibited from being a current or former EOP employee.

At a Glance

What It Does

Establishes the Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence in the EOP, with a Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation for the Director. It also authorizes staffing from federal agencies, and creates a bipartisan advisory board to guide practices.

Who It Affects

Directly affects EOP personnel and federal staff detailed to the Office, as well as individuals handling classified information and those serving on or affected by the Board.

Why It Matters

Creates centralized security training, formal counterintelligence and insider-threat capabilities, and stronger protection of classified information within the EOP; introduces bipartisan oversight through the Board.

More articles like this one.

A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.

Unsubscribe anytime.

What This Bill Actually Does

The bill would establish a new Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence inside the Executive Office of the President. The Director of this Office would be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, and the initial appointment would be due within 30 days after enactment.

The Director must be a recognized expert in security topics and be cleared for access to Top Secret information and sensitive compartmented information.

Staffing for the Office would come from career security and counterintelligence personnel detailed from other federal agencies. The Office could also receive detailees from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to support its mission.

The Office would pursue three main functions: running security training programs (online and in-person), conducting counterintelligence and insider-threat activities to protect the EOP, and safeguarding classified information (including guidance on use of unclassified messaging apps) and coordinating with the National Archives and Records Administration when appropriate.An advisory board, named the Security Training and Counterintelligence Advisory Board, would be established to advise the President, the National Security Adviser, the Director, and other EOP personnel on best practices in security training, counterintelligence and insider-threat awareness, and information protection. The four members would be appointed by the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate and the House, must be security experts with access to high-level clearances, and would serve two-year terms.

The Board would submit an annual report to the congressional intelligence committees and, at its first meeting, would elect a Chairperson who cannot be an EOP employee. The Board would operate alongside the Office, providing independent guidance while Congress receives regular updates on security practices.

The Five Things You Need to Know

1

The Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence will be housed in the Executive Office of the President.

2

The Director must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation and meet high-level security clearance qualifications.

3

Staffing includes career security professionals from federal agencies and possible DNI detailees, with appropriate security clearances.

4

An independent Security Training and Counterintelligence Advisory Board of four bipartisan members will guide practices and report annually to Congress.

5

The Board’s Chair cannot be an EOP employee and is elected at the Board’s first meeting.

Section-by-Section Breakdown

Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections. Expand all ↓

Section 2(a)

Office created in the Executive Office of the President

The bill proposes a new Office of Security Training and Counterintelligence within the Executive Office of the President. This office is tasked with developing and managing security training programs, counterintelligence activities, and the protection of classified information for personnel in the EOP. The creation establishes a formal home for centralized security functions currently dispersed across agencies.

Section 2(b)

Director: appointment, terms, and qualifications

There shall be a Director at the head of the Office appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. The initial appointment must occur within 30 days after enactment. The Director must be a recognized security expert with expertise in cybersecurity, physical security, or counterintelligence and must be eligible to access Top Secret information and sensitive compartmented information (SCI). This creates a high-threshold leadership role focused on maintaining robust security standards within the EOP.

Section 2(c)

Detailees and staffing

The Office will be staffed by career security and counterintelligence professionals detailed from federal agencies. The Director of National Intelligence may also detail personnel to assist in the Office’s functions, subject to clearance and security requirements. The section ensures a steady flow of qualified personnel while maintaining appropriate oversight and classification controls.

2 more sections
Section 2(d)

Functions: training, counterintelligence, and information protection

The primary functions are threefold: (1) security training—developing online and in-person curricula and managing courses and conferences; (2) counterintelligence and insider-threat activities—identifying, assessing, deterring, and mitigating threats to the EOP; and (3) protection of classified information—guarding information assets and coordinating with NARA on preservation and handling practices, including consideration of unclassified messaging platforms.

Section 2(e)

Advisory Board: composition and reporting

An advisory board called the Security Training and Counterintelligence Advisory Board is established to advise on best practices in security training, counterintelligence, insider-threat awareness, and information protection. The Board has four members—appointed by the party leaders of the Senate and the House (two from each chamber’s majority/minority leadership). Members must be recognized security experts with high-level clearances, serve two-year terms, and provide an annual report to congressional intelligence committees. The Board elects a Chair at its first meeting, and the Chair may not be an EOP employee.

At scale

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

  • EOP personnel receive structured security training and ongoing counterintelligence oversight that previously was scattered across agencies.
  • The broader federal security community (including ODNI and other security professionals) gains formal channels for cross-agency training and coordination.
  • NARA and information-management offices benefit from clearer guidance on preserving and handling classified information and coordinating with the EOP on information protection.
  • Congressional intelligence committees receive annual, formal input on security best practices and risk management across the EOP.

Who Bears the Cost

  • Federal agencies must accommodate detailees and redeploy staff to the Office, creating opportunity costs and workflow adjustments.
  • DNI and other agencies may incur staffing and administrative costs related to detailees and security clearances.
  • The EOP and related departments may face budgetary and compliance costs to implement new training programs and information-protection protocols.
  • Ongoing coordination with NARA and potential upgrades to information-handling processes may require upfront and ongoing investments.

Key Issues

The Core Tension

The central tension is between creating a centralized, expert-led security regime for the EOP and preserving impartial, apolitical operations. The Board’s partisan appointment process could introduce political considerations into security guidance, while the reliance on detailees and cross-agency staffing poses practical challenges for sustained expertise and consistent enforcement.

The bill introduces a centralized security training and counterintelligence mechanism within the EOP, paired with a bipartisan advisory board to guide policy and practice. While this structure promises more consistent training and stronger protection of classified information, it raises questions about resource allocation, interagency coordination, and the potential politicization of security guidance given the board’s bipartisan appointments by party leaders.

Implementation hinges on budgetary support for staffing, training development, and the secure handling of high-grade information. It also relies on a robust interface with existing security authorities across agencies and with the National Archives for record preservation.

Try it yourself.

Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.