H.R. 35 (119th)Bill Overview

Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

Crime and Law Enforcement|Border security and unlawful immigrationCongressional oversight
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Creates a new federal offense for intentionally fleeing a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent (or Federal/State/local officers assisting Border Patrol) while operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border. Establishes penalties: up to 2 years imprisonment normally, 5–20 years if serious bodily injury results, and 10 years to life if death results.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize asylum bars and civil‑liberties risks

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory change that adds a new federal criminal offense tied to a defined geographic scope, prescribes tiered penalties, amends immigration grounds, and requires annual reporting.

Creates a new federal offense for intentionally fleeing a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent (or Federal/State/local officers assisting Border Patrol) while operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

Establishes penalties: up to 2 years imprisonment normally, 5–20 years if serious bodily injury results, and 10 years to life if death results.

Makes conviction or admission of the offense a ground for inadmissibility, deportability, and ineligibility for immigration relief including asylum.

Passage35/100

Contentious policy area with significant civil liberties and immigration implications reduces likelihood despite narrow scope and reporting provision.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory change that adds a new federal criminal offense tied to a defined geographic scope, prescribes tiered penalties, amends immigration grounds, and requires annual reporting. It integrates directly with specified sections of Title 18 and the INA.

Contention75/100

Progressives emphasize asylum bars and civil‑liberties risks

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases legal penalties intended to enhance Border Patrol and assisting officers' safety during vehicle pursuits.
  • Potential benefitMay deter dangerous vehicle flight near the border, potentially reducing traffic-related injuries and deaths.
  • Federal agenciesEstablishes a uniform federal offense within the 100-mile border zone, simplifying multi-jurisdictional prosecutions.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesCriminalizes behavior across a broad 100-mile zone encompassing many communities, expanding federal criminal reach.
  • Potential burdenRemoves asylum eligibility for convicted or admitting noncitizens, potentially denying protection to eligible claimants.
  • Local governmentsLikely increases prosecutions, detention, and incarceration costs for federal and local systems.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize asylum bars and civil‑liberties risks
Progressive20%

Likely views the bill as an expansion of criminal law and immigration bars that will disproportionately affect migrants and noncitizens near the border.

Supports officer safety in principle but worries the statute is broad, risks misapplication, and removes asylum protections for some people who may be fleeing persecution or trafficking.

Sees the annual report as useful but insufficient to mitigate civil‑liberties concerns.

Likely resistant
Centrist60%

Sees legitimate public‑safety rationale for criminalizing dangerous vehicle flight that harms officers or civilians, while noting significant tradeoffs on immigration consequences.

Views the annual reporting requirement positively but wants clearer definitions and procedural safeguards.

Would favor adjustments to ensure proportionality and prevent unintended asylum denials.

Split reaction
Conservative90%

Generally supportive because the bill strengthens law enforcement tools and imposes tough criminal and immigration consequences for dangerous fleeing near the border.

Views the asylum and deportability provisions as appropriate deterrents and enforcement mechanisms.

Might seek even stronger penalties or clearer federal primacy in border zones.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Contentious policy area with significant civil liberties and immigration implications reduces likelihood despite narrow scope and reporting provision.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • How courts would interpret "intentionally fleeing" and mens rea
  • Projected prosecutorial and incarceration costs are unspecified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

HOUSE · Feb 13, 2025
Final passage✓ PassedParty-line

The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.

What is a final passage?

The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).

Yes 63% No 37%
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize asylum bars and civil‑liberties risks

Contentious policy area with significant civil liberties and immigration implications reduces likelihood despite narrow scope and reporting…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory change that adds a new federal criminal offense tied to a defined geographic scope, prescribes tiered penalties, amends imm…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis