← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB150
HB150 created the Texas Cyber Command as a separate state agency, effective September 1, 2025.
Official caption: Relating to the establishment of the Texas Cyber Command and the transfer to it of certain powers and duties of the Department of Information Resources.
Official report lists House author(s): Capriglione, Bonnen, Hefner, Lujan, Lopez, Ray. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB150 created the Texas Cyber Command as a separate state agency, effective September 1, 2025.
- What the command must provide: A cyber-threat intelligence center, an incident-response unit, a digital-forensics laboratory, a statewide reporting/management portal and a 24-hour hotline for state agencies and covered entities.
- Who is covered: “Governmental entity” includes state agencies and local governments.
- Training and testing: Annual certified cybersecurity training generally applies to governmental officials and employees with access to the entity's information resources or technology, replacing the former 25%-of-work computer-use threshold for covered employees.
- Staffing restriction: The command must adopt policies excluding non-U.S. citizens from being members, employees, contractors, volunteers or otherwise affiliated with the command or entities it establishes or operates under this chapter.
- Reporting, information and privacy: Existing incident-reporting duties move to the command, including notification within 48 hours after discovery and a detailed report within ten business days after eradication, closure and recovery.
What does it do?
HB150 created the Texas Cyber Command as a separate state agency, effective September 1, 2025. It combines new incident-response capabilities with cybersecurity and network-security duties transferred from the Department of Information Resources (DIR). The governor appoints its chief with Senate consent for two-year terms; the first term ends February 1, 2027. The agency faces abolition September 1, 2031 unless continued through Sunset review. The governor signed the bill June 2, 2025. Final law, Sections 1, 50–51; official history.
What the command must provide: A cyber-threat intelligence center, an incident-response unit, a digital-forensics laboratory, a statewide reporting/management portal and a 24-hour hotline for state agencies and covered entities. Its work includes detecting attacks, containing malware, restoring systems, preserving evidence, supporting law enforcement, sharing threat information and training. It may arrange administrative support and a San Antonio facility with secure space for classified information through another state agency. The final law does not place it under the University of Texas System or require UTSA to administer it. Section 1, new Government Code 2063.002–.004 and .201–.205.
Who is covered: “Governmental entity” includes state agencies and local governments. The chapter’s state-agency definition includes executive and judicial agencies and public higher education, not legislative agencies. A “covered entity” is a private critical-infrastructure operator or local government contracting with the command for services. Separate network-security provisions permit agreements with the Legislature, local governments, specified schools, hospitals and other listed entities. Providing network services to higher-education institutions requires approval from the Information Technology Council for Higher Education. These are defined service routes, not a promise of free help to every business. Sections 1, 29–30 and 36.
Training and testing: Annual certified cybersecurity training generally applies to governmental officials and employees with access to the entity’s information resources or technology, replacing the former 25%-of-work computer-use threshold for covered employees. Exceptions include military and federal family/medical leave; specified other leave or alternative-work arrangements without system access; and people denied access for noncompliance. School districts retain a special rule: the cybersecurity coordinator trains annually, while other covered employees train on the district’s schedule. State contractors with system access must complete training during the contract and renewal periods. Information-resources employees also face mandatory training established by the command. Agencies other than public higher-education institutions must undergo an information-security assessment and penetration test—an authorized test for vulnerabilities—at least every two years. Sections 1, 4–6 and 19.
Staffing restriction: The command must adopt policies excluding non-U.S. citizens from being members, employees, contractors, volunteers or otherwise affiliated with the command or entities it establishes or operates under this chapter. This is broader than a restriction on access to classified information alone. New Section 2063.101(c).
Reporting, information and privacy: Existing incident-reporting duties move to the command, including notification within 48 hours after discovery and a detailed report within ten business days after eradication, closure and recovery. They apply to state agencies/local governments maintaining the specified protected computerized data; election-data incidents have a secretary-of-state notification route, and the law retains an exception for local incidents required to be reported to the designated electricity-system organization. These deadlines were not invented by HB150. The definition also covers other cybersecurity occurrences designated by command policy. Agencies retain security officers, vulnerability reports, security plans and testing for websites/apps handling protected information. The command must prioritize agency cybersecurity projects for funding in an October 1 report in even-numbered years and provide other biennial reports. Sections 1, 9–13 and 35.
Security plans, vulnerability reports and specified shared/response information remain protected from public disclosure. HB150 deletes the express sentence making a separate, non-sensitive vulnerability-report summary available on request; that deletion should not be described as abolishing every public-information right. It expressly says the new chapter does not generally change confidentiality/privilege laws or enlarge state government’s right to demand people’s information, records or communications. New Sections 2063.011, .204, .301–.303, .403 and .510.
Existing programs move, rather than start from scratch: The command takes over training certification, the cybersecurity council, cloud-service security assessment/authorization, the volunteer incident-response team and regional security centers. Cloud vendors must demonstrate and maintain compliance to obtain or renew covered state contracts. Volunteers remain subject to screening, confidentiality and written acceptance of deployments; their existing good-faith civil-damages protection excludes wilful and wanton misconduct and applies during deployment. Regional-center participation is by agreement; expansion beyond one center requires a finding that the first delivers its contracted services. The council includes the Elections Division director, DIR and legislative/governor representatives, with staggered six-year terms. Sections 4, 7 and 14–18.
Network security, purchasing and costs: The command takes over the state network-security center and its monitoring/response services. Where it supplies network services, it handles external threats while the customer agency/entity remains responsible for internal threats. Agencies cannot buy other network-security services unless the command finds its center cannot meet the need at comparable cost. DIR keeps proportional billing responsibilities and must coordinate with the command when carrying out a governor’s qualifying Internet-disconnection order. Separately, the command cannot require governmental entities to buy a particular cybersecurity system or resource. Emergency purchases bypass three specified procurement provisions—not all procurement law—and require notice, retained records and a state-auditor report within 90 days. Sections 1 and 28–48.
Transition and repeals: DIR continues the old duties until the date set by the required transfer agreement. That agreement was due January 1, 2026; the transfer of covered work, employees, funds, property, rules and contracts must occur no later than December 31, 2026, with safeguards against unnecessary disruption. HB150 repeals the old DIR cybersecurity-coordinator provision, certain superseded duties and the Cyberstar recognition program; it does not repeal cybersecurity training certification. Related school, grant-compliance, personnel-screening, agency-planning and fee statutes are updated to fit the new structure. This briefing describes the legal timetable, not proof that the transfer, hiring or facilities are complete. Sections 19–27 and 47–51.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill placed the command in the UT System with UTSA administrative support and initially made DIR’s information-security officer its chief. The House committee changed leadership to a governor-appointed chief, moved Sunset from 2035 to 2031, excluded legislative agencies from the chapter’s state-agency definition and expanded operational duties. The Senate committee instead made it an independent agency, added the two-year chief’s term, expressly included local governments in “governmental entity,” broadened the transfer to network security and cloud authorization, added testing and purchasing safeguards, and changed mandatory covered-entity cost recovery to permissive recovery. These are substitute/version changes, not all separate floor amendments. Text-version index; introduced, House committee, House-passed and Senate committee texts.
All five House floor proposals were checked:
- Campos, amendment 1, adopted: Changed the governmental-entity definition’s wording and repealed Cyberstar. A source discrepancy matters: the amendment instructs replacement of “this state, a state agency,” with “a state agency,” without expressly deleting the following local-government phrase, while the published House-passed version lists only a state agency. The Senate and final versions clearly include local government. The record does not justify attributing an intention to exclude local government to Campos. Amendment 1.
- Hopper, amendment 2, tabled: Would have made the command a Texas State Guard unit under its commander’s orders as well as a UT System component. It did not become law. Amendment 2.
- Hopper, amendment 3, withdrawn: Proposed both denying noncitizens confidential/privileged information and barring affiliation with the command. Amendment 3.
- Hopper, amendment 4, adopted: Retained the noncitizen affiliation prohibition, without amendment 3’s separate information-access clause. That affiliation prohibition survived. Amendment 4.
- Jessica González, amendment 5, adopted: Specified the Elections Division director for the council seat; it survived. Amendment 5.
Parker’s adopted Senate floor amendment removed the requirement that DIR advise the chief’s rulemaking; deleted the proposed transfer/rewrite of the data-governance assessment statute; kept governor-ordered network disconnection with DIR, coordinated with the command; and corrected the first-chief appointment cross-reference. All four instructions were compared with the final law. The deleted data-governance proposal is not an enacted HB150 requirement. The House concurred May 29 after Senate passage May 27. Senate amendment; complete amendment index; Senate amendment packet.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
State agencies, participating local governments and critical-infrastructure operators may gain coordinated expertise and response capacity; residents could benefit if attacks and service disruptions are prevented or contained. Agencies and employees face training, reporting, testing and transition work. Noncitizen specialists are excluded from the specified command roles. Contractors may gain work, but security requirements and oversight impose obligations. The law cannot guarantee fewer breaches or a particular financial saving.
The command may charge covered entities for technical assistance, training and other services when reasonable and practical. Volunteer-team fees cannot exceed the command’s operating costs for that team; network-service billing is based on proportional use. The law therefore does not promise universally free assistance. New Sections 2063.005 and .507; amended Section 2059.151.
The final fiscal note estimates $138,716,366 in general-revenue costs for 2026–27: $68,476,294 in 2026 and $70,240,072 in 2027, plus an undetermined cost for the San Antonio facility/support arrangement. It assumes 65 additional full-time-equivalent positions in 2026 and 130 in 2027, separate from transferred DIR positions. Potential service-fee revenue was not credited because its amount was unknown. It anticipates no significant local-government fiscal implication; that is an estimate, not a promise of no local work or expense. HB150 itself makes no appropriation. Earlier UT-based versions had different facility, staffing and cost assumptions and are not the final estimate. Final fiscal note.
Separately, the enacted budget appropriated $135,536,236 to DIR in fiscal 2026, with 38 additional positions in each year of 2026–27, contingent on HB150, SB2176 or similar legislation. It requires statutory transfers and carries unspent funds into 2027. This differs from the fiscal note and does not prove every estimated cost is funded or spent. The governor’s budget vetoes did not remove this provision. SB1, Article IX, Section 18.13, printed page IX-110; veto proclamation.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.