College Security Reports Must Now Detail Police Coordination for 'Civil Disturbances'

The “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2025” is short, but it packs a punch by tweaking the Higher Education Act (HEA). Essentially, this bill mandates that colleges receiving federal funds must significantly upgrade how they report campus security, specifically targeting how they plan to handle protests and unrest. It’s not just about crime statistics anymore; it’s about formalized plans for managing crowds.

The New Mandate: Campus Security Meets Civil Unrest

Under current law, colleges already have to publish an annual campus security report detailing their safety policies. This bill adds a crucial new requirement: every institution must now include a detailed statement on how they plan to respond to an “incident of civil disturbance” on campus. The bill defines this disturbance as any civil unrest that “messes up the local community” or disrupts learning and requires intervention to maintain public safety. This is the key change, and it’s a big shift in focus from traditional crime prevention to managing political or social unrest.

Crucially, this response plan must detail how the university will coordinate with local, state, and campus law enforcement agencies. Think of it like a formalized, pre-approved playbook for calling in the police—not just campus security, but city or state police—when a protest gets too big or disruptive. For students and faculty who participate in protests, even peaceful ones that block a hallway or occupy a lawn, this means the institutional response is now legally required to be formalized and linked directly to external police forces.

Accreditation Agencies Get a New Job: The Compliance Check

If you’ve ever wondered who keeps colleges accountable, it’s the accrediting agencies. These are the groups that certify a school is legit, which is necessary for students to get federal financial aid. This bill gives these agencies a new item to check off their list: they must now monitor whether the schools they oversee are actually complying with these updated security reporting rules. If a college fails to create or adequately report its detailed plan for handling “civil disturbance,” its accreditation—and thus its access to federal student loan money—could be at risk. This move turns the accreditors into the compliance cops for campus protest management, giving them significant leverage over institutional policy.

Who Feels the Change and Why?

This bill attempts to standardize and formalize the response to campus unrest, which could be seen as a benefit for administrators who want clear guidelines when things get chaotic. However, the real-world impact lands squarely on those who engage in assembly and speech. The bill’s definition of “civil disturbance” is broad enough—anything that “messes up the local community”—that it could easily be interpreted to cover large, sustained, or inconvenient protests, even if they are non-violent. Because universities are now required to formalize their coordination with external law enforcement, students and faculty involved in these activities could face a much quicker and more aggressive police response than before. It creates a chilling effect where the line between protected speech and a reportable, police-involved “disturbance” is now fuzzier and potentially more punitive. The law mandates coordination, which means the decision to involve city police is now a required part of the school’s planning, not just a last-minute choice.