Congress mandates law enforcement attack data—but no action plan

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 ambush incidents and coordinated attacks; (2) non-criminal aggressive actions and trauma-inducing incidents against officers not currently tracked in federal crime databases; and (3) mental health and wellness resources available to officers. The reports must analyze data gaps, training effectiveness, protective equipment distribution, and recommend legislative tools to deter attacks and improve officer support. No new funding, enforcement mechanism, or substantive law is created—only information-gathering and analysis.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is a requirement for the Attorney General to produce three comprehensive reports on law enforcement officer safety, attacks, and wellness within 270 days. It is a data-gathering and analysis mandate with no direct regulatory, appropriations, or enforcement component.

What the text implies

• The bill's findings emphasize 'anti-police rhetoric' as a driver of violence against officers, potentially framing public criticism of policing as a contributing factor to officer safety threats—this rhetorical framing may influence how future policy responds to civil rights concerns.
• The mandate to analyze 'aggressive actions' and 'trauma-inducing incidents' that do not rise to the level of crime creates a new data category that could expand what is tracked and reported about interactions with law enforcement, with unclear downstream uses.
• The report on mental health and wellness may identify resource gaps, but the bill contains no appropriation or mandate to fund new mental health programs—recommendations alone do not guarantee implementation.
• The bill's focus on 'coordinated actions of 2 or more parties' in attacks on officers may signal interest in tracking organized anti-police activity, which could inform surveillance or intelligence priorities.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates transparency and accountability by requiring systematic data collection on attacks against officers and officer wellness, which may inform better public safety policy and resource allocation. However, the framing emphasizes officer protection and anti-police-rhetoric concerns without addressing potential disparities in how such data might be used or how it relates to broader public safety, accountability, or civil rights—the bill is one-directional in its focus.

Named in the bill

Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection, Uniform Crime Reporting System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, House Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

22 cosponsors: 18 Republicans, 4 Democrats.

• Mar 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary and Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• Mar 25, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Mar 25, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote”
• May 15, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 403 - 11 (Roll no. 131).”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $111,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 29 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Tim Moore, the sponsor, reported $499,450 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Peace Officers Research Association of California — $50,000 on 1 filing
• International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO — $40,000 on 2 filings
• North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police — $21,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.