A bill moving through the Tennessee General Assembly would create a new Office of Homeland Security within the Department of Safety, granting its officers statewide arrest powers and wrapping much of its activity in a level of confidentiality that has alarmed transparency advocates and raised questions for private security operators across the state.
HB1640 in the House and its Senate companion SB1881, introduced by Sen. Jack Johnson, a Republican from Franklin, represent Governor Bill Lee’s push to consolidate and expand the state’s homeland security apparatus. The legislation has drawn coverage from the Tennessee Lookout, which reported on February 10, 2026, that the governor was seeking broad homeland security powers with confidential actions, and from WSMV, which reported on March 4 that the bill would expand arrest powers for state homeland security officers.
For the private security industry in Tennessee, this is not abstract legislative maneuvering. The bill’s provisions around critical infrastructure, confidentiality, and expanded state enforcement powers could directly affect how private firms operate, what information they can access, and how they interact with a newly empowered state security office.
What the Bill Actually Does
The core of HB1640/SB1881 is structural. It creates, within the Tennessee Department of Safety, an Office of Homeland Security with powers that go well beyond the advisory and coordinating role that homeland security functions have traditionally played at the state level.
Officers appointed under this new office would have the authority to make arrests anywhere in the state of Tennessee. This is not a minor detail. Most law enforcement officers operate within defined jurisdictions: a city police officer’s authority ends at the city line, and a county sheriff’s deputies work within county boundaries. The bill’s grant of statewide arrest power to homeland security officers creates a new class of law enforcement with geographic reach that rivals only the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the state Highway Patrol.
The legislation goes further. Jails across the state would be required to accept any person arrested by these officers. This provision removes the bureaucratic friction that can sometimes delay processing when an officer from one jurisdiction makes an arrest in another, but it also means local facilities would have no discretion to question or refuse bookings from a state-level security office.
The Confidentiality Problem
The arrest powers have drawn attention, but the bill’s confidentiality provisions may prove more consequential for the private security industry.
HB1640/SB1881 designates records related to critical infrastructure as confidential. On its face, this is not unusual; many states protect certain infrastructure-related information from public disclosure to prevent it from being exploited by bad actors. But the Tennessee bill goes significantly further than typical critical infrastructure protections.
The legislation exempts these records from public records requests entirely. It also makes all investigative records confidential, not just during an active investigation, but even after the investigation or prosecution has concluded. There is no sunset provision, no declassification timeline, and critically, no public interest exception.
That last point is the one that has drawn the sharpest criticism. A public interest exception allows courts or oversight bodies to order disclosure when the public’s right to know outweighs confidentiality concerns. Without one, records generated by the Office of Homeland Security could remain sealed permanently, regardless of whether public safety, government accountability, or legal proceedings might benefit from their release.
The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, known as TCOG, has been vocal in its opposition. Deborah Fisher, the organization’s president, criticized the bill’s lack of accountability mechanisms, stating that “without a clear public benefit… or accountability,” the confidentiality provisions create a troubling gap in government oversight.
Where Private Security Meets State Power
Private security companies in Tennessee operate under licenses issued by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance through its Private Protective Services division. The industry is regulated, professionalized, and serves clients ranging from small retail businesses to large industrial facilities, hospitals, and, critically, entities that own or operate critical infrastructure.
The intersection with HB1640/SB1881 becomes apparent when you consider what happens at a power plant, a water treatment facility, a telecommunications hub, or a logistics center that handles sensitive materials. Many of these sites employ private security firms to provide on-site guards, access control, surveillance monitoring, and perimeter protection. Some of these firms hold contracts that require them to coordinate with law enforcement on security incidents.
Under the proposed legislation, the new Office of Homeland Security would have jurisdiction over critical infrastructure security matters. Its officers could arrive at a privately secured facility, conduct investigations, and make arrests, all while generating records that the facility’s owners, the security company, and the public would have no right to access.
For a private security operator running a contract at such a site, the practical implications are significant. If a homeland security officer conducts an investigation at a facility you are securing, you may have no legal right to know the findings. If your guards are involved in an incident that triggers a homeland security response, the investigative records could be permanently sealed. If a client asks you what happened and why state officers were on their property, you may not be able to provide an answer, because the answer is classified by statute.
Contract and Liability Concerns
Private security contracts typically include provisions around incident reporting, cooperation with law enforcement, and liability allocation. The introduction of a new state-level enforcement body with confidential investigative authority complicates each of these.
Consider incident reporting. Most contracts require the security provider to document incidents and share reports with the client. If a homeland security investigation classifies those same incident details as confidential, the security company faces a conflict between its contractual obligations and state law. Does the contract provision survive the confidentiality designation? Can a private firm be penalized for failing to report information that the state has deemed classified?
Liability is equally murky. If a homeland security officer makes an arrest at a facility and the arrest later proves unlawful, the sealed investigative records would make it extraordinarily difficult for anyone (the arrested individual, the facility owner, the security company) to build a legal challenge. Without access to the records that justified the arrest, due process arguments become speculative rather than factual.
Security company operators should be reviewing their contracts with clients at critical infrastructure sites now, before the bill passes. Provisions around law enforcement cooperation, incident reporting, and liability for government actions on secured premises need to be drafted with the possibility of a new, confidential state security apparatus in mind.
The Broader Tension: Expanding State Power, Shrinking Private Sector Space
Tennessee has historically maintained a regulatory environment that is favorable to private enterprise, including the private security industry. The state’s licensing framework provides structure without being onerous, and the relationship between private security firms and local law enforcement has generally been cooperative rather than competitive.
HB1640/SB1881 could shift that balance. A state Office of Homeland Security with statewide arrest powers occupies space that has traditionally been filled, at least in part, by private security and local law enforcement working together. If the office takes an expansive view of its mandate (and the bill’s language provides ample room for expansive interpretation), private security firms could find themselves operating in an environment where a state agency has overlapping authority and superior legal standing at the very sites they are contracted to protect.
This is not to suggest that the bill is designed to undermine private security. Its stated purpose is to strengthen the state’s ability to protect critical infrastructure and respond to homeland security threats. But legislation rarely affects only its intended targets. The private security industry, which provides thousands of jobs across Tennessee and generates significant economic activity, stands in the path of these expanded powers whether the bill’s authors intended that or not.
What to Watch in the 114th General Assembly
The bill is still working its way through the legislative process, and amendments could alter its final form. Private security industry operators should be tracking several specific elements.
First, watch for any amendment that adds a public interest exception to the confidentiality provisions. This single change would significantly reduce the bill’s impact on transparency and accountability, and it would make it easier for private companies to fulfill their own reporting and legal obligations.
Second, watch for definitions. The bill’s language around “critical infrastructure” will determine how broadly the Office of Homeland Security’s jurisdiction extends. A narrow definition (limited to, say, power plants and water systems) affects a relatively small number of private security contracts. A broad definition that includes commercial buildings, transportation hubs, or healthcare facilities would touch a much larger segment of the industry.
Third, watch for oversight mechanisms. Who supervises the Office of Homeland Security? What checks exist on its arrest powers? Is there legislative review of its operations? The answers to these questions will determine whether the office operates as a targeted security enhancement or an unchecked expansion of state power.
Finally, watch for fiscal notes. New law enforcement offices cost money: salaries, equipment, training, facilities. How the state funds the office may affect other public safety budgets, including those that currently support cooperative programs between law enforcement and private security.
An Industry That Cannot Afford to Be Passive
The Tennessee private security industry has not historically been a powerful lobbying force in Nashville. Individual companies tend to focus on operations rather than politics, and the industry’s trade associations have limited resources compared to other sectors.
That approach may not be sufficient for the 114th General Assembly. HB1640/SB1881 represents a structural change in how Tennessee approaches security, and private operators who do not engage with the legislative process risk having their operating environment reshaped without their input.
At minimum, security company owners and operators in Tennessee should read the bill in its current form, consult with legal counsel about its potential impact on existing contracts, and communicate concerns to their state legislators. The bill may well pass in some form (Governor Lee’s support gives it significant momentum), but the details of that final form are still negotiable. The private security industry has legitimate interests at stake. Whether those interests are reflected in the final legislation depends entirely on whether the industry shows up to the conversation.