Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Creates federal penalties for publishing law enforcement officers' personal information online.
The problem
Doxxing—sharing private addresses and details online—puts police officers and families at risk of harassment, threats, and violence. Officers need protection from targeted attacks.
The proposal
Establishes federal criminal penalties for intentionally publishing law enforcement officers' home addresses, phone numbers, or family information with intent to harass or harm them.
The impact
Law enforcement officers gain legal protection. People who share officer details face federal charges. Free speech and activism groups may face restrictions on sharing public information.
Police officers and their families face real danger from doxxing. This law deters dangerous online harassment campaigns. It gives officers peace of mind at home.
Online harassment of police has increased significantly. Federal law fills gaps where state laws don't protect officers. Creates consistent nationwide protection.
Criminal penalties deter people from organizing doxxing campaigns. Reduces coordinated attacks against individual officers and their families.
Activists and journalists argue sharing factual public information is protected speech. The law could chill legitimate criticism of police. Defining illegal intent is difficult and subjective.
The bill may not clearly distinguish between harmful doxxing and news reporting or public records. People might face charges for sharing already-public information with no harmful intent.
Other professionals like judges, election workers, and teachers also face doxxing but lack similar federal protection. Creates unequal legal protection across groups.
Proving intent to harass or harm is difficult in court. Determining what counts as 'personal information' versus public records requires complex legal interpretation.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 4307
Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act
HR 10638
Skills Against Violence Act of 2026
HR 10565
Sexual Abuse Services in Detention Act
HR 10543
PREP Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.