Technical corrections only. The diff reflects the bill's transition from being passed by the House to being received and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate. There are no substantive policy changes between v3 and v4.
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary), Armed Services Committee, Homeland Security Committee
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
This bill comprehensively reauthorizes and reforms the Coast Guard, focusing on increased funding, organizational restructuring, and a major overhaul of its approach to sexual misconduct.
What it actually does
H.R. 4275, the "Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025," authorizes appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2025 through 2029, significantly increasing military end strength and training levels. It reorganizes the Coast Guard by establishing a civilian Secretary of the Coast Guard position, modifies acquisition and personnel policies, and introduces extensive reforms related to sexual assault and harassment response within the service and at the Coast Guard Academy. The bill also addresses merchant mariner credentialing, vessel safety, port security, autonomous maritime systems, oil pollution response, and mandates numerous reports and studies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is crucial for modernizing the Coast Guard, enhancing its operational capabilities in a complex global environment, and ensuring the well-being and safety of its personnel. They would highlight the increased appropriations, the establishment of a civilian Secretary for improved oversight, and the robust measures to combat sexual assault and harassment as vital for the service's future effectiveness and integrity.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill's significant organizational changes, particularly the creation of a civilian Secretary, could disrupt the Coast Guard's military chain of command and operational efficiency. Concerns might also be raised about the rapid increase in military strength without fully detailed plans for infrastructure and recruitment, or the potential for unfunded mandates on the Coast Guard through numerous reporting requirements and new programs.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring several hours for a thorough review. Given its omnibus nature, the time required to fully grasp its implications is substantial, potentially exceeding the time typically afforded for public review of such complex legislation.
Sec. 101, Title I
Authorization of Appropriations for FY2025-2029
This section authorizes specific appropriation levels for the Coast Guard across various accounts (Operations and Support, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, Environmental Compliance and Restoration, Retired Pay) for fiscal years 2025 through 2029. It outlines a substantial increase in funding over these years, reaching $15.5 billion for Operations and Support by FY2029.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these increased appropriations are essential to recapitalize an aging fleet, expand critical missions (e.g., in the Pacific and Arctic), improve personnel readiness, and address long-standing underfunding of the Coast Guard.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such significant increases in spending should be more closely tied to specific, detailed mission requirements and cost-benefit analyses, rather than broad authorizations.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for Coast Guard modernization and expanded mission capabilities against fiscal constraints and competing federal spending priorities.
Sec. 102, Title I
Increase in Military End Strength and Training
This section significantly increases the authorized active duty end strength for the Coast Guard from 44,500 to 50,000 for FY2025-2026, 55,000 for FY2027, and 60,000 for FY2028-2029. It also increases authorized student years for various training programs. A reporting requirement is included if proportional funding increases are not met.
Sec. 201, Title II
Establishment of Civilian Secretary of the Coast Guard
This section repeals the existing section 102 of title 14 and establishes a new civilian position, the "Secretary of the Coast Guard," appointed by the President with Senate consent. This new Secretary reports directly to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard operates (normally DHS), bypassing other officials. The Commandant reports directly to this new Secretary. The section also outlines the new Secretary's powers and responsibilities, including oversight of Coast Guard affairs, policy formulation, and ensuring effective cooperation with other military departments. It also mandates a plan and review by the Comptroller General before implementation.
Sec. 243, Title II
Direct Hire Authority for Critical Civilian Positions
This section grants the Commandant direct hire authority for specific civilian positions within the Coast Guard, including medical/health professionals, childcare services, housing office personnel, primary prevention specialists for harmful behavior, and special agents for the Coast Guard Investigative Service, as well as certain Coast Guard Academy faculty and health/well-being positions. This authority is granted without regard to standard civil service hiring provisions, provided there's a shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring need. It sunsets on September 30, 2030.
Sec. 301, Title III
Streamlining Merchant Mariner Credentialing and Training
This section amends title 46, U.S. Code, to revise merchant mariner deck training requirements, reducing required sea service periods for certain Able Seaman credentials (e.g., from 3 years to 18 months for Able Seaman-Unlimited). It also modifies how training days can be substituted for sea service, allowing different types of training (classroom, lab, simulator, underway) to count for varying multipliers of sea service. It also expands eligibility for certain maritime positions to "noncitizen nationals" and repeals section 7314 of title 46.
Sec. 314, Title III
Mandatory Pilotage for Straits of Mackinac
This section amends title 46, U.S. Code, to explicitly designate the Straits of Mackinac as pilotage waters, meaning vessels transiting these waters will be required to use a federally licensed pilot. It also provides a specific geographic definition for the Straits of Mackinac for this purpose.
Title V (multiple sections)
Comprehensive Reforms for Sexual Assault and Harassment Response
Title V introduces a wide array of reforms to the Coast Guard's policies and procedures regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment. Key changes include mandating an independent review of Coast Guard reforms (Sec. 501), establishing comprehensive policies for retention and access to evidence and records (Sec. 502), allowing expedited transfers for victims (Sec. 528), implementing a "Safe-to-Report" policy (Sec. 505), and requiring continuous vetting of security clearances for senior leaders (Sec. 531). It also modifies reporting requirements, officer separation processes, and training programs to address covered misconduct.
Sec. 503, Title V
Expedited Transfer for Coast Guard Academy Cadets Who Are Victims of Sexual Assault
This section amends section 1902 of title 14, U.S. Code, to mandate timely consideration and action on requests from Coast Guard Academy cadets who are victims of alleged sexual assault or related offenses for transfer to another military service academy or a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (SROTC) program. It sets a 72-hour response deadline for the Superintendent and allows for approval unless there are "exceptional circumstances." It also ensures confidentiality and allows for retention of appointment status.
Sec. 519, Title V
Enhanced Accountability for Senior Leaders' Misconduct
This section mandates the Secretary to establish a policy within 90 days to improve oversight, investigations, accountability, and public transparency regarding alleged misconduct by senior Coast Guard leaders (O-7+, SES, or equivalent). It requires allegations to be reported to the Inspector General (IG) within 72 hours, grants the IG the "first right to exclusive investigation," and mandates public availability of the policy and its incorporation into training.
Title VI (multiple sections)
Mandated Comptroller General Studies on Coast Guard Operations
Title VI mandates several studies by the Comptroller General (GAO) on various aspects of Coast Guard operations. These include reports on the Research, Development, and Innovation program (Sec. 601), behavioral health care and personnel wellness (Sec. 602), medical records and data sharing with VA (Sec. 603), training facility infrastructure (Sec. 604), basic allowance for housing (Sec. 605), safety and security infrastructure at the Coast Guard Academy (Sec. 606), and the permanent change of station process (Sec. 607).
Expands eligibility for certain merchant mariner credentials and positions on U.S. vessels to "noncitizen nationals" (as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408), in addition to U.S. citizens. Specifically, it allows up to 50% of unlicensed seamen on certain vessels to be noncitizen nationals until December 31, 2065.
Sec. 301(k), Title III (amending 46 U.S.C. 7102, 7304, 8103, 12131, 12135)
Why it matters:This is a substantive policy change that could be controversial, potentially affecting U.S. maritime labor. Embedding it within a technical reauthorization bill and making changes through multiple conforming amendments can reduce its visibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this addresses critical workforce shortages in the U.S. merchant marine, particularly for unlicensed seamen, by expanding the pool of eligible individuals. It could enhance operational readiness and competitiveness.
Case against: Critics might argue this could depress wages for U.S. citizen mariners or dilute national security interests by increasing reliance on non-citizens for a strategic industry.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for the U.S. maritime labor market and the operational flexibility of U.S.-flagged vessels.
Replaces the existing prohibition on acquiring vessels with major components from foreign shipyards with a new restriction on leasing, chartering, or otherwise procuring vessels with major hull/superstructure components constructed in foreign shipyards. It adds an exception for national security interests to address "immediate adverse effect on Coast Guard missions," but requires a written explanation to Congress.
Sec. 233, Title II (amending 14 U.S.C. 1151)
Why it matters:Modifying "Buy American" requirements, even with national security exceptions, can be politically sensitive. Placing it within a broader acquisition section might reduce immediate scrutiny compared to a standalone bill.
Case for: Proponents argue that the modification provides necessary flexibility for the Coast Guard to address urgent mission needs, especially when domestic shipyard capacity is insufficient or timelines are too long. The national security exception is framed as a critical tool.
Case against: Critics, particularly domestic shipbuilding advocates and labor unions, would argue that this weakens "Buy American" protections, potentially diverting funds and jobs from U.S. shipyards and undermining the domestic industrial base.
Estimated impact: Could impact U.S. shipbuilding industry and Coast Guard procurement strategies, potentially allowing faster access to vessels in emergencies but at the cost of domestic industrial support.
Amends title 31 to include the Coast Guard as a "Department of the Treasury law enforcement organization" for purposes of accessing the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. It also eliminates separate funds for the Coast Guard within this framework, consolidating its access.
Sec. 217, Title II (amending 31 U.S.C. 9705)
Why it matters:This is a technical change to funding mechanisms, often placed in omnibus bills due to its specific nature and the need for broad legislative vehicles to pass such amendments.
Case for: Proponents would argue this streamlines funding for Coast Guard law enforcement operations, providing a more efficient mechanism for utilizing forfeited assets to support critical missions.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such technical funding adjustments, provided they are transparently managed.
Estimated impact: Could provide additional, flexible funding for Coast Guard law enforcement activities, potentially in the tens of millions annually, without direct appropriations.