Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds retired law enforcement officers to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program if they die or become permanently and totally disabled from a personal injury that was a targeted attack because of their law enforcement service. It defines a "retired law enforcement officer" as someone who separated from service in good standing, whether paid or unpaid, at a public agency.
Retroactivity and resulting fiscal liability concerns
Narrow, sympathetic benefit expansion with modest fiscal impact is usually easy to pass the House.
The bill adds retired law enforcement officers to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program if they die or become permanently and totally disabled from a personal injury that was a targeted attack because of their law enforcement service.
It defines a "retired law enforcement officer" as someone who separated from service in good standing, whether paid or unpaid, at a public agency.
The amendment applies on enactment to pending and future claims and, for qualifying attacks, retroactively to incidents on or after August 28, 2012.
Narrow, low-controversy benefit extension with limited fiscal exposure and clear implementable language increases likelihood.
How solid the drafting looks.
Retroactivity and resulting fiscal liability concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Retroactivity and resulting fiscal liability concerns
Generally supportive as a targeted extension of benefits to public servants harmed because of their official service.
Sees it as a fairness measure for retirees who face targeted violence due to prior duties.
May press for oversight and equity in implementation.
Likely cautiously supportive: a targeted and narrow benefit expansion that honors harmed retirees, but warrants fiscal and administrative clarity.
Wants clear standards and budgetary offsets or estimates before full endorsement.
Sympathetic to protecting retired officers subject to targeted attacks, but cautious about expanding federal benefits and retroactive liabilities.
Would seek narrow scope, strict proof requirements, and budget offsets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-controversy benefit extension with limited fiscal exposure and clear implementable language increases likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Retroactivity and resulting fiscal liability concerns
Narrow, low-controversy benefit extension with limited fiscal exposure and clear implementable language increases likelihood.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.