Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill adds a new federal criminal offense making it unlawful, without authorization, to enter Department of Defense property that has been clearly marked as closed or restricted. It sets escalating penalties: first offense up to 180 days imprisonment or fine; second offense up to 3 years; third or subsequent offenses up to 10 years.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and protest exemptions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes the narrow substantive task of creating a new federal trespass offense for unauthorized entry onto DoD-jurisdiction property that is clearly marked as closed or restricted and prescribes graduated penalties.
This bill adds a new federal criminal offense making it unlawful, without authorization, to enter Department of Defense property that has been clearly marked as closed or restricted.
It sets escalating penalties: first offense up to 180 days imprisonment or fine; second offense up to 3 years; third or subsequent offenses up to 10 years.
The amendment inserts a new chapter and section into title 18, United States Code, and is titled the Guarding and Administering Trespass Enforcement, Controlling Restricted Areas, and Stopping High-risk Encroachment Recidivism and Sabotage (GATE CRASHERS) Act.
Content is narrow, low-cost, and security-linked so plausibly attractive to both sides; vagueness and expanded criminal penalties create some opposition risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes the narrow substantive task of creating a new federal trespass offense for unauthorized entry onto DoD-jurisdiction property that is clearly marked as closed or restricted and prescribes graduated penalties. However, it is minimally developed beyond that core prohibition.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and protest exemptions.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and protest exemptions.
Supports protecting military installations from sabotage and trespass but is concerned the bill criminalizes nonviolent protest and lacks safeguards.
Worried about missing intent standards, journalist and whistleblower exemptions, and potential for disproportionate enforcement.
Would seek narrowing amendments to protect civil liberties while preserving security.
Generally sympathetic to securing DoD property but wants clearer definitions and proportional penalties.
Sees value in a federal backstop but would press for narrow scope, clear signage standards, and intent elements to avoid unintended prosecutions.
Likely to back the bill if amended for clarity and safeguards.
Strongly favors the bill as a needed deterrent against trespass, espionage, and sabotage at military sites.
Views escalating penalties, especially for repeat offenders, as appropriate to protect national security.
Would prefer robust enforcement and may support even stricter measures.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, low-cost, and security-linked so plausibly attractive to both sides; vagueness and expanded criminal penalties create some opposition risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and protest exemptions.
Content is narrow, low-cost, and security-linked so plausibly attractive to both sides; vagueness and expanded criminal penalties create so…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes the narrow substantive task of creating a new federal trespass offense for unauthorized entry onto DoD-jurisdiction property that is clearly mark…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.