Campus Accountability and Safety Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 6, 2026
Bottom line
The bill strengthens federal requirements for colleges and universities to prevent, report, and respond to campus sexual violence and related misconduct, aiming to create a more victim-centered, transparent, and accountable system.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act to enhance campus safety policies, particularly concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual harassment, and stalking. It mandates new, detailed reporting requirements for institutions, standardizes definitions for various offenses and roles, requires the designation of confidential "sexual and interpersonal violence specialists," establishes comprehensive training programs, and creates a public federal website for campus safety information. Additionally, it expands the scope of existing federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to include combating sexual harassment on campuses.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill addresses critical gaps in current campus safety protocols by providing better support for survivors through trauma-informed approaches and dedicated confidential specialists. They contend it increases transparency regarding campus crime statistics and institutional responses, fostering safer campus environments and holding institutions more accountable for their handling of sexual violence cases.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill imposes excessive regulatory burdens and costs on institutions, particularly smaller ones, without adequate federal funding to support the new mandates. Concerns could also be raised about the prescriptive nature of the requirements, potential for overreach into institutional disciplinary processes, or challenges in implementing uniform processes across diverse campus environments, though the bill does include provisions for due process.
The bill is relatively concise for its impact, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, though understanding the full implications requires familiarity with existing Clery Act and Title IX regulations.
Section 2(1)(A)
Enhanced Public Accessibility of Annual Security Reports
This provision requires institutions to publish their annual security reports in an easily accessible manner, available in different languages, and prominently displayed on their websites. This aims to make critical safety information more readily available to a broader audience, including non-English speakers and those unfamiliar with navigating university websites.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this improves transparency and ensures that vital safety information reaches all members of the campus community, especially vulnerable populations, empowering them to make informed decisions.
Critics contend
Some institutions might argue that translating and maintaining reports in multiple languages adds an administrative burden and cost, especially for smaller institutions with limited resources.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of broad accessibility and transparency with the administrative and financial capacity of institutions to implement multi-language and prominent online publication.
Section 2(1)(D)
Detailed Reporting on Student-Perpetrated Sexual Assault Incidents
This section mandates new annual reporting additions specifically for incidents of rape and fondling where the respondent is a student. Institutions must report the number of such incidents reported to Title IX coordinators, the number of victims seeking disciplinary action, cases processed, findings of responsibility, sanctions imposed, and cases closed due to respondent withdrawal. This aims to provide a clearer picture of how institutions handle student-on-student sexual assault cases.
Section 3(2), paragraph (19)
Publicly Available Campus Safety Website
This provision directs the Secretary of Education to create a publicly available, searchable, and user-friendly campus safety website. This website will include information on Title IX coordinators, sexual and interpersonal violence specialists, pending investigations and enforcement actions by the Department of Education, downloadable Clery Act data, and instructions for filing complaints related to Title IX and the Clery Act.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(B)(i)
Mandate for Sexual and Interpersonal Violence Specialists
This provision requires institutions to designate one or more "sexual and interpersonal violence specialists." These specialists must be experienced in trauma-informed victim services, supervised outside the disciplinary process, and provide confidential services and information to complainants, including reporting options, rights, and available accommodations. They are explicitly not required to report allegations as campus security authorities, ensuring a confidential resource for survivors.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(B)(iv)
Mandated Amnesty Policy for Good Faith Reporters
This provision requires institutions, to the extent practicable, to provide an amnesty policy for students who report domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking in good faith. This policy would protect reporting students from sanctions for related student conduct violations like physical violence (in self-defense) or alcohol/drug use at the time of the incident, aiming to remove barriers to reporting.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(B)(v)
Mandated Training Programs for Institutional Staff
This provision directs the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Attorney General and in consultation with victim services organizations, to develop evidence-informed training programs. These programs are for individuals involved in student grievance procedures and those interviewing complainants, covering victim-centered, trauma-informed techniques, types of misconduct, consent (including for individuals with disabilities or neurodivergent individuals), effects of trauma, cultural responsiveness, and perpetrator behavior. Institutions must ensure relevant staff receive this training.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(B)(vi)
Uniform Campus-Wide Disciplinary Process
This provision mandates that each institution establish and carry out a uniform disciplinary process for all claims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking against a student. This process cannot vary based on the student's status (e.g., athletic team, academic major). Institutions cannot automatically notify law enforcement or require cooperation with law enforcement as a condition of student participation in disciplinary proceedings.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(C)
Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Education to impose civil penalties of up to 1% of an institution's operating budget for each year of non-compliance with the requirements for sexual and interpersonal violence specialists and other provisions of the paragraph. The Secretary can enter into voluntary resolutions and adjust penalties based on factors like institutional size, gravity of violation, and intent, providing a strong enforcement mechanism.
Section 5
Expansion of VAWA Grants to Include Sexual Harassment
This provision amends Section 304 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA) to include "sexual harassment" alongside domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as a crime that grants can be used to combat on campus. This expands the scope of eligible activities and prevention efforts under these federal grants, allowing institutions to seek funding for sexual harassment initiatives.
Adds new definitions for 'complainant,' 'respondent,' 'title IX coordinator,' and 'higher education responsible employee' to the Clery Act. These definitions standardize terminology for individuals involved in campus misconduct cases and for key institutional roles.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating statutory definitions. Placing them here ensures consistency with existing legal frameworks.
Case for: Proponents argue that clear, consistent definitions are fundamental for effective policy implementation, accurate reporting, and ensuring all parties understand their roles and rights within campus disciplinary and reporting processes, reducing ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying definitions, as it enhances legal and administrative precision and consistency, which is generally viewed as beneficial.
Estimated impact: These definitions will have a foundational impact on how all institutions interpret and implement policies related to campus sexual misconduct, affecting all students and employees involved in such cases.
Defines "victim-centered, trauma-informed interview techniques" as asking questions of a victim in a manner focused on their experience, non-judgmental, informed by evidence-based research on the neurobiology of trauma, and culturally competent, based on practices of victim advocacy centers.
Section 4(a), paragraph (20)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for establishing foundational principles or definitions that will guide subsequent mandates. It sets the tone for the entire section on survivor support.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition is essential to ensure survivors are treated with dignity and respect, fostering an environment where they are more likely to report and engage with institutional processes, and reducing the risk of re-traumatization during interviews.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against adopting trauma-informed practices, as they are widely recognized as best practices in victim support and align with ethical considerations.
Estimated impact: This definition will guide the training and practices of all institutional staff involved in interviewing victims of sexual misconduct, influencing the quality of support and the effectiveness of investigations across all eligible institutions.
Establishes different effective dates for various provisions related to university support for survivors. Specifically, the requirement for sexual and interpersonal violence specialists (Section 485(f)(20)(B)(i)) takes effect either 1 year after the Secretary determines an adequate number of specialists through rulemaking or 3 years after enactment, whichever is earlier. Other provisions (clauses (ii) through (viii) of Section 485(f)(20)(B)) take effect 1 year after enactment.
Section 4(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to manage the implementation timeline of complex provisions, allowing time for agencies to develop regulations and institutions to prepare for compliance. It acknowledges the administrative burden of new mandates.
Case for: Proponents argue that staggered effective dates are practical and necessary, providing institutions and the Department of Education sufficient time to develop regulations, conduct negotiated rulemaking, hire and train staff, and implement complex new policies without undue burden, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.
Case against: Critics might argue that delaying the full implementation of key survivor support provisions, particularly the specialist role, prolongs the period during which students may not receive optimal support. They might advocate for more immediate implementation, citing the urgency of addressing campus sexual violence.
Estimated impact: These staggered effective dates will determine the timeline for when institutions must comply with the most significant new mandates, directly influencing the pace of change in campus safety protocols and survivor support services across the nation.