HB 35 is expected to have a negative fiscal impact of approximately $9.08 million to General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium​. The Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), tasked with implementing the First Responder Peer Support Network, would require substantial new resources to build and maintain the program statewide. This includes the creation of regional peer support hubs, delivery of peer training programs (including suicide prevention), and connection of first responders to clinical services at no cost to the individual responders.

Specifically, TDEM would need to hire approximately 10.2 full-time employees to administer the network, including a State Program Director, eight Regional Hub Coordinators, and program specialists. These staffing and operational expenses are projected to cost about $2 million per year, covering salaries, benefits, travel, and related activities​. In addition to personnel costs, an initial $0.9 million would be needed in fiscal year 2026 for motor vehicles to support statewide recruitment and peer training operations. Establishing and operating the regional peer support hubs would also cost an estimated $2 million annually.

The bill does not make an appropriation itself but would authorize the necessary spending if funding is provided through the appropriations process. Notably, there are no significant fiscal implications expected for local governments, meaning cities and counties would not be required to expend local funds to implement or participate in the network​.

While well-intentioned, HB 35 nonetheless expands the size and responsibilities of state government by creating an entirely new program within the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM). It adds a new operational mission — mental health support coordination — which extends beyond TDEM’s traditional emergency management role. This kind of agency mission expansion represents the gradual growth of government bureaucracy, even if initially limited in size.

Moreover, the bill increases the burden on taxpayers without a corresponding reduction in spending elsewhere. The program would cost taxpayers an additional $9.08 million over the next biennium​— a meaningful sum, especially when fiscal restraint should be prioritized amid broader budget pressures.

From a philosophical standpoint, mental health support services are better delivered by local communities, nonprofits, religious organizations, or professional associations, rather than through a new state-run system. Government programs often lack the flexibility, personal attention, and innovation that private or community-driven efforts can offer. By institutionalizing mental health support for first responders within a government agency, the bill may unintentionally crowd out private sector solutions.

Finally, there is a legitimate concern about future mission creep. Programs that start narrowly often expand over time, requiring additional appropriations, expanding their target populations, or becoming permanent fixtures in the state budget regardless of performance outcomes. Without hard limitations or sunset provisions, this new peer support network could grow beyond its initial mandate, increasing state responsibilities and spending in ways lawmakers may later regret. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 35.

• The bill protects first responders’ freedom to seek mental health support without fear of professional retaliation. It safeguards confidentiality and voluntary participation — no first responder is forced into the peer network​. In that sense, it promotes personal choice and helps protect privacy rights.
• The bill encourages first responders to proactively seek peer counseling and mental health help. However, because it is government-facilitated (rather than a private-sector or professional association-driven initiative), it shifts part of the personal responsibility for mental health from the individual and their employer to a state agency. Some might argue that this diminishes the incentive for purely private or personal solutions.
• HB 35 does not regulate, burden, or restrict private businesses or industries. However, by providing free government-coordinated access to clinical resources, it could indirectly discourage private-sector, market-driven alternatives from forming or expanding in the first responder support space. The effect is minimal at this scale, but philosophically it represents a state intervention in a service area that the free market could otherwise meet.
• The bill does not affect private property rights. It doesn’t authorize any taking of property, new regulations on land or assets, or any interference with ownership.
• The bill creates a new, permanent government program within TDEM. It requires hiring at least 10 new state employees​. It adds $9+ million per biennium in new state spending without cuts elsewhere​. It shifts a traditionally private or local responsibility (mental health support) into the direct purview of a state agency. Thus, it violates the principle of Limited Government — even if it’s "well-intentioned" — by expanding state functions beyond public safety and emergency response into the realm of social services.