The bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to institutions of higher education to enable those institutions to hire veterans as campus security personnel. It also includes a separate provision that bars the use of any federal funds to support Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) as described in 34 C.F.R. part 270 or “any similar center.”
The measure matters because it pairs targeted federal encouragement of veteran hiring for campus safety with an across‑the‑board cutoff of federal support for a network that provides civil‑rights technical assistance to schools. That combination creates operational choices for campuses and the Department of Education, and it raises immediate questions about implementation, funding levels, and civil‑rights oversight gaps.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Education must run a competitive grant program that institutions apply to in order to hire veterans as campus security personnel; the statute defines key terms by referencing the Higher Education Act and title 38 U.S.C. The bill also contains an absolute prohibition—'notwithstanding any other provision of law'—preventing any federal funds from supporting Equity Assistance Centers or similar entities.
Who It Affects
Institutions of higher education (public, private, and for‑profit as defined under the HEA), veterans who meet the statutory definition in title 38, campus security and public‑safety hiring managers, and the federal Equity Assistance Center network along with state agencies and schools that rely on EAC services.
Why It Matters
The bill pairs a federal push to staff campus security with veterans with a statutory removal of funding for a national civil‑rights assistance infrastructure; practitioners should note the Secretary’s broad application authority, the reliance on existing statutory definitions, and that the text authorizes a program without specifying an appropriation or grant terms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 sets up a grant program administered by the Secretary of Education: institutions apply and, if selected, receive funds that must be used to hire veterans into campus security positions. The text borrows definitions from the Higher Education Act for 'campus' and 'institution of higher education' and from title 38 for 'veteran,' which means the program will operate inside familiar statutory boundaries for which campuses and applicants will already account.
The application language is permissive: institutions must submit whatever information the Secretary 'may reasonably require.' That phrase gives the Department substantial discretion to shape eligibility criteria, competitive scoring, and compliance obligations—because the statute does not set applicant thresholds, matching requirements, hiring standards, or reporting rules, the Department will supply much of the program’s operational detail through regulations or guidance if the program moves forward.On the spending side, the bill is specific about use of funds: grant money must go to hire veterans as campus security 'for the campus of the institution.' It does not authorize other uses—training, benefits, equipment, or administrative support are not mentioned—leaving open whether grant awards will cover salaries only or a broader set of personnel costs. Notably, the bill authorizes the program but contains no appropriation figure or mandatory funding stream; Congress would still need to appropriate money for grants to be awarded.Section 3 contains a bright‑line prohibition on federal funding for Equity Assistance Centers as defined in 34 C.F.R. part 270, and for 'any similar center.' That language is broad: it purports to cut off federal support for a specified federal technical‑assistance network and for centers that the Department or courts might deem 'similar.' Eliminating federal support for EACs would reduce a longstanding source of civil‑rights technical assistance for K–12 and higher‑education institutions and could shift those functions to states, private contractors, or nonfederal entities.Taken together, the bill nudges campuses toward hiring veterans by making federal grant money available while simultaneously removing a federal equity technical‑assistance network.
The text leaves several key implementation choices—and potential legal questions—unresolved, including how the Department will define competitiveness, whether grants will fund training or only salaries, and how the EAC prohibition interacts with other federal civil‑rights enforcement mechanisms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 ties statutory definitions to existing law: 'campus' and 'institution of higher education' reference the Higher Education Act, and 'veteran' references 38 U.S.C. §101.
The Secretary must award grants on a competitive basis, but the statute gives the Secretary authority to require applicants to submit information 'at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.', Grant funds are restricted to hiring veterans 'as campus security personnel for the campus of the institution'—the bill does not enumerate allowable ancillary costs such as equipment, training, or benefits.
Section 3 uses an explicit 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' clause to bar all federal funds from supporting Equity Assistance Centers (34 C.F.R. part 270) or 'any similar center,' creating a broad, categorical cutoff.
The bill authorizes a program but contains no appropriation or funding amount, so actual grant awards would require a separate congressional appropriation or funding action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Veterans in Campus Safety Act.' This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s two‑part policy frame—veterans and campus safety—which informs how practitioners and litigants are likely to interpret legislative intent.
Grant program to hire veterans as campus security
Subsection (a) imports definitions from the Higher Education Act and title 38, which fixes the universe of eligible campuses and who counts as a veteran. Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to award grants on a competitive basis, while (c) gives the Secretary broad discretion to set application timing, form, and required information. Subsection (d) restricts the permissible use of grant money: recipients must use funds to hire veterans as campus security personnel for their campus(es). Practically, that creates three workstreams for implementation—definition and eligibility questions, the competitive scoring regime the Department will adopt, and a compliance framework that determines whether salaries, benefits, or training are reimbursable.
Prohibition on federal funding for Equity Assistance Centers
This section states that 'notwithstanding any other provision of law,' no federal funds may be used to support Equity Assistance Centers as described in 34 C.F.R. part 270 or 'any similar center.' The operative mechanics are simple and sweeping: an across‑the‑board ban on federal support for a named set of technical‑assistance entities and for centers the Department or courts might deem 'similar.' For operations, this raises immediate questions about grant wind‑downs, reallocation of services EACs provide, and potential litigation over what constitutes a 'similar' center or a permissible indirect use of federal funds.
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
- Veterans with qualifying service records — gain potentially prioritized employment opportunities on campus and a federally supported hiring pathway that could ease transition to civilian public‑safety roles.
- Institutions of higher education that choose to participate — receive federal grant support to expand campus security staffing with veterans, which can lower recruitment costs or speed hiring for security positions.
- Campus safety units and existing security staff — may gain colleagues with military training and experience, and institutions may redeploy internal budgets if grant funds cover salaries.
Who Bears the Cost
- Equity Assistance Centers and their contractors — lose federal funding and may have to cease or reduce technical‑assistance services to schools and districts that rely on them.
- State and local education agencies, plus K–12 and postsecondary institutions that depend on EAC services — will need to find alternative providers or absorb those functions internally at added cost.
- Department of Education — faces administrative burdens of implementing a new competitive grant program without specified funding levels and may confront legal challenges to the EAC funding prohibition, requiring staff time and potential litigation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is straightforward: the bill seeks to strengthen campus security by directing federal dollars toward hiring veterans while simultaneously dismantling a federal technical‑assistance network that supports civil‑rights compliance—advancing safety goals for some stakeholders but potentially weakening federal capacity to monitor and remediate discrimination and inequity on campuses.
The bill resolves two separate policy questions with blunt instruments but leaves critical implementation details unaddressed. On the grant side, the statute provides no appropriation, no authorized funding amount, no duration, no matching requirement, and no specification whether grants cover base salary, benefits, training, or equipment.
The Secretary’s discretion over application requirements will determine who is competitive, but that discretion also shifts the burden of making policy choices from Congress to the Department. Practically, campuses will need to know whether veterans must possess particular law‑enforcement certifications, whether hiring preferences are permissible under applicable labor and civil‑service laws, and whether grants will support full‑time positions versus contract or part‑time hires.
On the civil‑rights side, the prohibition on funding for Equity Assistance Centers is categorical and sweeping. EACs provide technical assistance on school desegregation, discrimination complaints, and compliance with federal civil‑rights statutes; removing federal support could create service gaps for schools that lack state or local capacity.
The 'any similar center' language is vague and invites downstream litigation or administrative disputes over what entities are covered. The bill does not identify transition arrangements, carve‑outs for ongoing enforcement, or alternate funding mechanisms, so the practical effect could be an abrupt loss of federally supported technical assistance with uncertain substitutes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.