Passed
403 Yea11 Nay19 Not voting1/2 required
HR-2240-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Tim Moore (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would require the Attorney General, in consultation with FBI and National Institute of Justice directors, to submit three separate reports to Congress within 270 days of enactment. The first report would cover violent and ambush attacks on law enforcement officers, including data gaps, training programs, and protective gear distribution. The second would analyze whether a new reporting category for sub-criminal aggressive actions against officers could be added to existing federal crime databases. The third would examine the mental health and wellness of law enforcement officers and available support resources.
Who benefits
Federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers and their families, who may see improved safety protocols, training, and mental health resources as a result of the data gathered. Law enforcement agencies that could receive better-targeted federal resources. Policymakers and researchers who would gain a more complete picture of violence against officers. Communities that could benefit from a better-supported and better-trained police workforce. Nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions consulted during the report development process.
Who is hurt
There are no direct, immediate costs imposed on any specific group. Taxpayers would bear any administrative costs associated with producing the three reports, though these are likely modest. Civil liberties and police accountability organizations may object to the potential expansion of federal crime databases to include sub-criminal conduct, which could affect how interactions between the public and police are recorded and characterized. State and local law enforcement agencies may face indirect administrative burden if they are asked to contribute data or survey responses during the consultation process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that existing federal data systems — such as the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) database — do not capture the full range of threats officers face, including sub-criminal aggression and coordinated ambush attacks. They contend that 60 officers were feloniously killed in 2022 alone, with nearly 30% of those deaths resulting from unprovoked or ambush-style attacks, and that better data is a prerequisite for effective policy responses. They further argue that officer mental health has deteriorated due to stress and recruitment challenges, and that targeted federal reporting is a low-cost, evidence-based first step toward addressing these gaps.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's congressional findings contain characterizations — such as linking "anti-police rhetoric" to rising violence — that embed contested political claims into federal law before the data has been collected or analyzed. They contend that expanding federal crime databases to include sub-criminal "aggressive actions" or "trauma-inducing incidents" against officers could create a reporting framework that documents public conduct not currently classified as criminal, raising concerns about how such data might be used in future enforcement or legislative contexts. They also argue that the bill addresses officer safety data in isolation without a parallel examination of data on use-of-force incidents or civilian injuries.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under Article I to direct executive branch agencies to collect data and report to Congress, and the Attorney General's existing data collection mandate under the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988 (34 U.S.C. 41303(c)) provides a clear statutory foundation. No provisions implicate active constitutional tension areas.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Attorney General, FBI, and National Institute of Justice) gains a reporting obligation directed by Congress; Congress retains oversight authority by receiving the reports through the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and no new enforcement powers or appropriations are granted to the executive branch.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously directed similar data-gathering reports on law enforcement, including through the Death in Custody Reporting Act (2013) and the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act (2017), which required the DOJ to study and report on officer wellness programs.
Passed