The bill tasks the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (within DOJ), working with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to audit FBI hiring records for employees hired after the enactment of Public Law 119–21 and certify that hiring requirements — including background checks — met OPM standards. It also requires DOJ to cross-reference new FBI hires since January 20, 2025 with State-level misconduct files (police and employment records) to determine whether those records were considered during hiring.
Separately, the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) must certify within 180 days that every FBI agent and officer completed required training and state the length of that training. Within one year, the Government Accountability Office must report audit findings, the DOJ determination about use of State-level misconduct files, and pass/fail rates for FLETC training for FBI personnel to the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees in both chambers.
The measure increases formal oversight of FBI vetting and training but raises implementation, privacy, and resource questions for DOJ, OPM, FLETC, and State/local agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, in coordination with OPM, to audit FBI hires made after enactment of Public Law 119–21 and certify compliance with hiring requirements. It directs cross-referencing hires since January 20, 2025 against State-level misconduct files, requires FLETC to certify training completion and duration within 180 days, and mandates a GAO report to specified congressional committees within one year.
Who It Affects
Directly affects FBI human-resources and vetting processes, DOJ management (Deputy Assistant Attorney General), OPM, FLETC, and newly hired FBI agents and officers (with a January 20, 2025 cutoff for state-file checks). It also pulls in State and local law-enforcement agencies whose misconduct records will be queried and the GAO for evaluation and reporting duties.
Why It Matters
This bill creates a formal, time-bound review of recent FBI hiring and training with congressional visibility, potentially exposing systemic vetting or training gaps. It sets a precedent for federal agencies to systematically mine State misconduct records for past hiring decisions and requires training completion transparency that could influence future hiring and training policy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill assigns responsibility for the review to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Management and Compliance, who must work with the Office of Personnel Management to examine FBI hiring files for a defined cohort: employees hired after the enactment of Public Law 119–21. That audit must verify that mandatory hiring steps — notably background investigations — were completed and that the FBI followed applicable OPM hiring standards.
The bill does not create new hiring standards; it demands documentation and a certification of compliance with existing ones.
For hires since January 20, 2025, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General must also cross-reference each new employee against State-level misconduct files, which the statute identifies broadly to include police records and employment files from law-enforcement agencies. The explicit question the review must resolve is whether information in those State records was considered during the original hiring evaluation.
The text does not prescribe how requests for State records must be made, nor does it specify remedies if the review finds missing or ignored records.On training, the bill makes the Director of FLETC responsible for certifying within 180 days that every FBI agent and officer completed the training required for their position and for listing how long that training lasted. That certification requirement is notable because FBI personnel receive training in multiple venues; by directing FLETC to certify completion and duration, the bill creates a centralized training-accountability checkpoint even where training may have occurred outside FLETC facilities.Finally, the Government Accountability Office must compile a report for the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees in both chambers within one year.
The GAO deliverable must include the DOJ/OPM audit findings, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General’s determination about whether State-level misconduct files were considered, and an audit of FLETC pass/fail rates for FBI agents and officers. The bill obligates internal oversight and an external audit, but it stops short of prescribing corrective action or public disclosure requirements; instead, it funnels findings to congressional oversight committees for potential follow-up.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Deputy Assistant Attorney General must conduct an audit of FBI hiring records for employees hired after the enactment of Public Law 119–21, working with OPM to certify compliance with hiring requirements, including background checks.
The bill requires cross-referencing all new FBI employees hired since January 20, 2025 against State-level misconduct files (police and law-enforcement employment records) to determine whether those records were considered during hiring.
Within 180 days of enactment, the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers must certify that every FBI agent and officer completed required training and state the length of training each completed.
The Government Accountability Office must submit a report to the Senate and House Judiciary and Appropriations Committees within one year that includes the audit findings, DOJ’s determination on state-record use, and an audit of FLETC pass/fail rates for FBI personnel.
The statute defines “appropriate congressional committees” narrowly as the Senate and House Judiciary and Appropriations Committees; the bill does not create new enforcement penalties or require public release of the findings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the “FBI Hiring Review Act.” This is purely identificatory but signals the bill’s focus on the FBI rather than other agencies.
Definitions and committee recipients
Defines key terms used in the bill: the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (for Management and Compliance), the FBI, and “appropriate congressional committees,” which the bill limits to the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House. That narrow committee list controls who receives the GAO report and frames congressional oversight channels.
DOJ/OPM audit of FBI hiring records
Requires the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, in coordination with OPM, to audit hiring records for FBI employees hired after the enactment of Public Law 119–21. The audit must certify that all hiring requirements — explicitly including background checks — were completed and consistent with OPM standards. Practically, this directs DOJ to assemble personnel files, background-investigation records, and hiring paperwork for a defined cohort and produce a certification of compliance; it creates an evidentiary review but does not set a standard beyond verifying adherence to existing OPM rules.
Cross-reference with State and local misconduct files
Directs the Deputy Assistant Attorney General to cross-reference every new FBI employee hired since January 20, 2025 against State-level misconduct files, including police records and employment records from law-enforcement agencies, to determine whether such information was considered during hiring. The provision is procedural — it mandates review and determination — but it leaves operational questions open, like the method for obtaining State records, how to handle sealed or expunged records, and whether the review triggers any follow-up action if the records were not considered.
FLETC certification of training completion and length
Requires the Director of FLETC, within 180 days of enactment, to certify that every FBI agent and officer has completed the training required for their positions and to report the length of training each completed. This creates a centralized accountability mechanism for training completion and duration; however, it assumes FLETC has the visibility and authority to certify training across venues where FBI personnel may receive instruction.
GAO report to congressional committees
Mandates that the Comptroller General deliver to the specified committees, within one year, a report containing: (1) findings from the DOJ/OPM audit; (2) a description of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General’s determination about whether State-level misconduct files were used during hiring evaluations; and (3) an audit of pass and fail rates at FLETC for FBI agents and officers. The GAO role provides an independent check on the DOJ-conducted work and supplies committees with standardized data for oversight or legislative action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Congressional Judiciary and Appropriations Committees — receive a consolidated GAO report and DOJ/OPM audit findings, improving their capacity for targeted oversight of FBI hiring and training practices.
- DOJ and FBI leadership — the audit gives management a clearer, documented view of compliance gaps or procedural weaknesses, enabling internal corrective action and risk mitigation if issues are identified.
- Training policymakers and FLETC leadership — the required certification and pass/fail data provide empirical input to review and adjust training curricula, duration, and standards.
- Accountability advocates and oversight stakeholders — although the bill does not mandate public disclosure, the flow of information to Congress increases the chance that systemic problems will be identified and addressed.
Who Bears the Cost
- FBI human resources and vetting offices — must assemble records, support cross-references to State systems, and respond to the DOJ/OPM audit, creating an administrative and resource burden.
- State and local law-enforcement agencies — will face requests for misconduct and employment records, potentially requiring staff time to search, redact, and transmit records under different State law regimes.
- FLETC and OPM — must provide certifications, training-length records, and cooperate with audits, adding to their operational workload and record-keeping obligations.
- Newly hired FBI employees and applicants — may face retroactive scrutiny of their records and potential reputational or career impacts if the audit surfaces overlooked misconduct information, without the bill specifying remediation or appeal processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—stronger oversight of hiring and transparent training accountability—against practical and legal constraints: retrospective mining of State misconduct records and centralized certification increases accountability but imposes uneven burdens on agencies and individuals and leaves unresolved how to handle differing State records practices or what remedial steps should follow discovery of gaps.
The bill creates oversight through documentation and reporting but leaves major implementation details unspecified. It does not spell out processes for obtaining, authenticating, or reconciling State-level misconduct records, nor does it address variations in State record retention, sealing, or expungement laws.
That variability will complicate any cross-jurisdictional review and could generate uneven results across applicants depending on their State of origin. The statute also presumes FLETC can certify training for “every agent or officer of the FBI,” yet many FBI training functions occur at the FBI Academy or other venues; how FLETC establishes a complete and accurate training roster is unresolved.
Another tension is retrospective review without pre-defined consequences. The bill requires certification and a GAO report but does not require corrective action, disciplinary measures, re-investigation, or public disclosure if gaps are found.
That design channels findings to Congress and invites oversight hearings, but it may leave DOJ and the FBI with ambiguity about immediate operational responses. Finally, the cross-referencing of State misconduct files raises privacy and due-process concerns—especially for records that are sealed, contested, or not normalized across jurisdictions—and may provoke legal challenges or require new intergovernmental agreements to access protected records.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.