Congress orders sweeping data collection on attacks against police—but no funding to fix problems.
H.R. 2240 — Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act of 2025 · Filed by Tim Moore (R-NC) · 22 cosponsors · Introduced Mar 21, 2025 · Passed chamber
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Attorney General to produce three detailed reports within 270 days on (1) violent attacks targeting law enforcement officers, including ambushes and coordinated incidents, with recommendations for federal, state, and local responses; (2) non-criminal aggressive actions or trauma-inducing incidents against officers and whether new data categories should be created to track them; and (3) the mental health and wellness impacts on officers from these incidents, available support programs, and gaps in mental health resources. The bill does not create new crimes, penalties, or funding—it mandates data collection, analysis, and recommendations.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a reporting requirement directing the Attorney General to compile and analyze existing and new data on attacks against law enforcement officers, officer mental health, and training effectiveness. It is a data-gathering and analysis mandate, not a substantive policy change or appropriation.
What the text implies
- The bill directs creation of new data categories for 'aggressive actions' and 'trauma-inducing incidents' that do not rise to the level of crime, potentially expanding the scope of reportable conduct beyond traditional criminal offenses and creating a new administrative category that could influence law enforcement priorities or surveillance practices.
- The emphasis on 'anti-police rhetoric' in the findings section, combined with data collection on 'coordinated actions' and 'ambush attacks,' may shape the framing of protest activity or civil disobedience as a precursor to violence, influencing how state and local agencies classify and respond to demonstrations.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill serves a legitimate public-interest purpose by directing systematic data collection on officer safety and mental health, which can inform evidence-based policy and resource allocation. However, the framing around 'anti-police rhetoric' and the emphasis on 'ambush attacks' as a primary driver of violence, combined with the broad category of 'trauma-inducing incidents' that fall short of crimes, may shape reporting and policy recommendations in ways that could disproportionately focus enf