Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill creates a new federal criminal offense making it unlawful to ignore a verbal warning and come within 15 feet of a Federal law enforcement officer engaged in duties, with specified intents: impede, threaten, or harass. "Harass" is defined as knowingly engaging in conduct that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. Violations are punishable by fines, imprisonment up to five years, or both.
Liberty vs safety: protest and press concerns versus officer protection
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a new federal criminal offense with specific elements and a defined penalty and makes the necessary conforming change to the title-18 table of sections.
This bill creates a new federal criminal offense making it unlawful to ignore a verbal warning and come within 15 feet of a Federal law enforcement officer engaged in duties, with specified intents: impede, threaten, or harass. "Harass" is defined as knowingly engaging in conduct that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
Violations are punishable by fines, imprisonment up to five years, or both.
The bill adds the new offense as 18 U.S.C. 1522 and updates the title 18 table of sections.
Substantively narrow and administrable, but free‑speech and vagueness concerns plus potential Senate hurdles lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a new federal criminal offense with specific elements and a defined penalty and makes the necessary conforming change to the title-18 table of sections. The core prohibitory mechanism is relatively specific, but supporting implementation details, fiscal acknowledgement, integration with existing law, and accountability provisions are limited or absent.
Liberty vs safety: protest and press concerns versus officer protection
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberty vs safety: protest and press concerns versus officer protection
Likely skeptical.
Supports officer safety in principle but worries this law could chill protest, journalism, and civilian oversight.
Concern centers on vague definitions and potential selective enforcement.
Pragmatic and mixed.
Recognizes the need to protect officers, but flags vagueness and civil liberties tradeoffs.
Would favor amendments clarifying scope and safeguards.
Generally favorable.
Views the bill as a reasonable criminal deterrent and necessary protection for federal law enforcement performing duties.
Sees clear enforcement tools as beneficial.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively narrow and administrable, but free‑speech and vagueness concerns plus potential Senate hurdles lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberty vs safety: protest and press concerns versus officer protection
Substantively narrow and administrable, but free‑speech and vagueness concerns plus potential Senate hurdles lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a new federal criminal offense with specific elements and a defined penalty and makes the necessary conforming change to the title-18 table of section…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.