S-1038-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Thomas Tillis (R-NC)
What it does
The TRACE Act would require the Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, to add a new data field to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) indicating whether a missing person's last known location was confirmed or suspected to be on federal land or in U.S. territorial waters. It would also require the Attorney General to submit annual reports to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees with the count of such cases from the previous calendar year.
Who benefits
Families of missing persons whose loved ones disappeared on federal land, who would benefit from better-organized case tracking. Law enforcement agencies — federal, state, tribal, and local — that investigate missing persons cases on federal land, who would gain a clearer picture of case distribution. Researchers and policymakers studying missing persons patterns on public lands. Search and rescue organizations operating on federal lands. Indigenous communities, who are disproportionately affected by missing persons cases near federal land, may benefit indirectly from improved data visibility.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies — particularly the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice — would bear the administrative cost of modifying the NamUs database and producing annual reports, though these costs are likely modest. State and local law enforcement agencies that enter data into NamUs may face a small additional reporting burden. No group faces a direct material harm from this bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal land — encompassing national parks, forests, Bureau of Land Management territory, and Army Corps of Engineers water projects — covers roughly 640 million acres, yet NamUs currently has no systematic way to flag cases originating in these areas. They contend that adding this data field would allow investigators to identify geographic patterns, allocate resources more effectively, and improve coordination between federal land managers and law enforcement, potentially accelerating the resolution of cold cases.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new reporting layer without providing dedicated funding or staffing to implement it, potentially straining the National Institute of Justice's existing resources. They contend that a data field alone does not address the underlying gaps in missing persons investigations on federal land — such as inconsistent reporting by agencies and underfunded search operations — and that without mandatory data-entry standards or enforcement mechanisms, the new field may be incompletely or inconsistently populated, limiting its practical value.
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 and report data, and the bill operates entirely within existing federal administrative structures. No provisions implicate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth Amendment protections outlined in the criminal justice constitutional context.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Attorney General/National Institute of Justice) gains a new administrative duty; Congress retains oversight through the mandatory annual reporting requirement to both Judiciary Committees.
Historical precedent
The Ashanti Alert Act (2018) similarly expanded the national missing persons alert framework by directing the Department of Justice to establish a new alert system, representing a comparable use of congressional authority to modify federal missing persons infrastructure.