HR 2406: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act of 2025

HR 2406 in plain English: This bill expands NOAA's rules for preventing and responding to sexual harassment and assault among its personnel, including observers, at-sea monitors, and fishery council staff. It removes a requirement that certain offenses be 'forcible' to be unlawful, creates a confidential reporting option, and adds new requirements for reporting incidents to the Coast Guard. It also bars people convicted of certain sexual offenses from joining NOAA.

Stated purpose

This bill aims to strengthen NOAA's existing policies for preventing and responding to sexual harassment and sexual assault by expanding who is covered, removing certain legal thresholds, creating confidential reporting options, and improving reporting and oversight requirements.

Key points

• Extends NOAA's sexual harassment and assault policy to observers, at-sea monitors, and regional fishery management council staff
• Removes the requirement that acts like assault or sexual harassment must be 'forcible' to be considered unlawful
• Requires NOAA to report sexual harassment and assault claims to the Coast Guard, including names, incident time and date, and vessel location
• Creates a confidential 'restricted reporting' system so personnel can report incidents and receive services without triggering an investigation
• Bans people convicted of certain sexual offenses from enlisting with or being commissioned by NOAA

Arguments supporters make

• Workers in remote settings like fishing vessels are especially vulnerable to harassment and assault, and explicitly including observers and monitors closes a real gap in protection.
• Allowing confidential reporting gives victims a way to get help without fear of retaliation or unwanted exposure, which may encourage more people to come forward.
• Removing the requirement that harassment or assault be 'forcible' to be unlawful reflects a more accurate understanding of how these incidents actually occur and ensures more cases can be addressed.

Arguments opponents make

• Expanding mandatory reporting to the Coast Guard and other agencies could discourage victims from reporting at all if they fear losing control over their own information, undermining the bill's confidentiality goals.
• Adding new reporting layers and bureaucratic requirements may strain NOAA's administrative resources without clear evidence that these specific measures reduce incidents.
• The restricted reporting system could create confusion about when investigations are triggered and may leave some perpetrators unaddressed if victims choose confidential routes, potentially putting others at risk.

Tradeoffs

Expanding reporting requirements and sharing incident information with the Coast Guard increases oversight and accountability but may conflict with victim privacy and the voluntary nature of restricted reporting. Broader coverage and lower legal thresholds protect more workers but may require NOAA to investigate a wider range of conduct with the same existing resources.

Current status in Congress: In committee.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week