New Advisory Council to Map Gun Violence Victim Resources, But No New Money Authorized

The Resources for Victims of Gun Violence Act of 2025 is setting up a new federal body to coordinate support for people impacted by gun violence. Think of it as the government attempting to create a centralized, easy-to-read map of all the medical, financial, and legal help available after a shooting incident. This new group, the Advisory Council to Support Victims of Gun Violence, will be run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is tasked with figuring out what victims need and where the current support system is falling short.

Who Counts as a Victim?

One of the first things this bill does is lay down a very wide definition of who is considered a “Victim of Gun Violence.” It’s not just the person who was shot. The definition covers anyone wounded, threatened with a firearm, or who witnessed a shooting. Crucially, it also includes relatives, classmates, coworkers, or anyone else associated with someone who was killed, wounded, or threatened. This broad scope means the Council’s work will need to cover a massive range of needs—from physical recovery and long-term care to the mental health and financial struggles faced by friends and family trying to navigate the aftermath. For example, the coworker who was present during a workplace shooting is now officially recognized as needing support, not just the person directly targeted.

The Council’s Mandate: Mapping the Gaps

This new Advisory Council won’t be staffed only by federal officials; the bill requires HHS to appoint between two and five actual victims of gun violence and the same number of professionals who work with them (like social workers or EMTs). Their main job is to survey victims and professionals, review existing programs, and identify the best ways to connect people with resources for everything from housing and transportation to mental health and legal aid. Within 180 days of the law passing, they have to deliver a report to Congress and state agencies detailing the best practices and, more importantly, pointing out the gaps in support and suggesting new laws to fix them. They’ll do a follow-up report two years after that.

The Fine Print: Transparency and Funding Challenges

While the intent is clearly focused on helping people, two specific details in the bill raise eyebrows. First, the bill explicitly states that the Council is exempt from the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA is the law that generally ensures federal advisory committees operate transparently, with open meetings and accessible records. Exempting this Council means it can operate with less public scrutiny than typical federal advisory groups. For people who value government transparency, this is a procedural concern.

The second, and perhaps more practical, challenge is funding. The bill mandates numerous activities—conducting surveys, writing reports, distributing information (including hard copies to every Member of Congress and Social Security office)—but then states that no new funding is authorized to carry out these activities. This means the Council must rely solely on existing budgets within HHS and other agencies. For the busy analyst, this is the classic red flag: a huge new set of responsibilities without dedicated resources. It raises the question of whether the Council can actually perform its wide-ranging duties effectively, or if it will simply become an understaffed body struggling to meet its ambitious reporting deadlines. The Council itself is temporary, set to automatically end five years after the Act becomes law.