Colleges must disclose harassment policies, fund prevention programs

What it does

This bill requires colleges and universities to develop and publicly report detailed anti-harassment policies covering harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, and religion—both on campus and through electronic communications. It also creates a $50 million competitive grant program (2026–2031) to help institutions develop harassment-prevention programs, counseling services, and staff training, with reporting requirements to Congress on program effectiveness and best practices.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is mandatory institutional disclosure of harassment policies and federally-funded prevention programs. It is a transparency and capacity-building measure, not a regulatory carve-out or private subsidy. The Tyler Clementi namesake reflects the bill's protective intent (Clementi was a Rutgers student who died by suicide after being harassed), not sponsor vanity.

What the text implies

• Colleges must now track and publicly report harassment patterns by protected characteristic, creating a new data-collection and disclosure burden that may expose institutional liability or reputational risk if patterns are widespread.
• The bill defines 'electronic communication' and 'electronic messaging services' broadly to cover off-campus harassment via personal devices and third-party platforms, potentially extending institutional responsibility beyond traditional campus boundaries.
• Grant funding is competitive and time-limited (3 years, renewable for 2 more), so institutions without capacity to apply or sustain programs after federal funding ends may face compliance costs without ongoing support.
• The bill requires institutions to inform both accuser and accused of disciplinary outcomes, which may conflict with privacy expectations or existing state/federal confidentiality laws in some jurisdictions.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Students gain enforceable transparency about how institutions handle harassment, clearer reporting procedures, and access to federally-funded prevention and counseling services. The bill does not create new private liability or restrict student rights; it mandates institutional disclosure and establishes grants for support services, which are public goods.

Who stands to gain

• institutions of higher education (grant recipients)
• nonprofit organizations partnering with colleges on anti-harassment programs

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Education, institutions of higher education, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (Senate), Committee on Education and Workforce (House), Tyler Clementi (namesake, deceased Rutgers student)

Where it stands

170 cosponsors: 170 Democrats.

• Sep 18, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 18, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Education and Workforce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,029,908 in lobbying spend. A filing names 84 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Mark Pocan, the sponsor, reported $453,320 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Anti-defamation League — $590,000 on 2 filings
• Human Rights Campaign — $439,908 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.