The "Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2025" requires the Attorney General to submit a report detailing proposed programs within the Department of Justice to offer modern treatments or preventative care for job-related post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder to public safety officers and public safety telecommunicators.
Charles "Chuck" Grassley
Senator
IA
The "Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2025" directs the Attorney General to develop and report on a program within the Department of Justice to provide modern treatments or preventative care for job-related PTSD and acute stress disorder to public safety officers and telecommunicators. The program should include access to trauma-informed care, peer support, counseling, and family support via in-person and telehealth services. The report must include draft grant conditions to ensure the confidentiality of public safety officers seeking care, methods for efficient program administration at all levels, draft legislative language to authorize each program, and estimated annual appropriations needed for each program. The Attorney General must consult with relevant agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations.
The "Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2025" directs the U.S. Attorney General (AG) to investigate and report back within 150 days on potential new federal programs designed to tackle job-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder among public safety personnel. The core goal is to outline feasible ways the Department of Justice could offer modern treatments and preventative care for these frontline workers.
The bill explicitly acknowledges the tough reality faced by police officers, firefighters, EMTs, and 911 dispatchers. Citing findings, it notes these professionals are exposed to high-stress, life-threatening situations, leading to significantly higher rates of conditions like PTSD and depression—around 30% compared to 20% in the general public. The legislation also points to the tragic link between these conditions and a higher risk of suicide, alongside the fact that many departments, especially smaller ones, lack the resources or local access needed for specialized mental health care.
This isn't just a suggestion; the bill requires the AG to deliver a detailed report to Congress. This report must propose at least one potential program, assuming it's feasible, focusing on modern approaches like trauma-informed care, peer support networks, counseling, and crucially, support for families. Key requirements for the proposed programs include strong confidentiality protections for officers seeking help and efficient administration methods that work across state, Tribal, territorial, and local levels, potentially using both in-person and telehealth services. The AG also needs to provide draft legislative language to authorize any proposed programs and estimate the annual funding required. To get this right, the AG must consult with government agencies employing these officers, as well as non-governmental groups that support them.
The bill clearly defines who it aims to help. "Public safety officers" include law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel, specifically referencing the definition in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and including Tribal officers. It also explicitly includes "public safety telecommunicators" – the dispatchers managing emergency calls and coordinating responses. The focus is on providing access to up-to-date, evidence-based care tailored to the unique traumas experienced in these demanding professions.
While the bill mandates a plan, turning that plan into effective, accessible support on the ground presents challenges. Ensuring adequate funding, consistent implementation across diverse jurisdictions (from large cities to small towns), and truly confidential access will be critical hurdles. The requirement to consult broadly aims to address some of these complexities. It's also worth noting, as per the provided analysis, that sectors like health professionals stand to benefit if such programs are implemented, highlighting the need for careful oversight in program design and vendor selection to ensure taxpayer funds are used effectively and ethically.