Congress demands police misconduct data be public—finally.

What it does

This bill requires federal law enforcement agencies and state/local agencies receiving federal grant funding to collect and publicly report detailed data on civil judgments and settlements arising from police misconduct allegations—including the race, ethnicity, and sex of officers and civilians involved, the type of misconduct, personnel actions taken, and the total amount paid. The Attorney General must publish this data in a searchable public database, and the Government Accountability Office must study the data after two years to identify trends and recommend reforms. States and localities that fail to comply face up to a 10% reduction in federal law enforcement grant funding.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is mandatory data collection and public disclosure of police misconduct settlements and judgments. It is a transparency and accountability measure, not a regulatory or enforcement action—it creates no new legal liability, only visibility into existing civil outcomes.

What the text implies

• Public database may reveal disparities in misconduct allegations and settlements by race/ethnicity of officers and civilians, potentially fueling both reform advocacy and defensive narratives from law enforcement.
• Compliance burden on state and local agencies may be significant, especially smaller jurisdictions with limited data infrastructure; the 10% grant penalty creates strong incentive but may strain resources.
• Exclusion of personally identifiable information of officers protects privacy but may limit public ability to track individual officers across jurisdictions or identify patterns of repeat misconduct.
• GAO study and DOJ recommendations are advisory only; no enforcement mechanism compels agencies to adopt reforms, limiting practical impact beyond transparency.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens gain transparency into police misconduct costs and patterns—previously hidden or fragmented data—enabling public scrutiny, informed voting, and accountability. The bill creates no new liability for officers or agencies; it only mandates disclosure of existing judgments and settlements. The public database and GAO analysis serve the broad interest in democratic oversight and evidence-based reform.

Named in the bill

Department of Justice, Attorney General, Government Accountability Office (GAO), Byrne JAG program, COPS on the Beat program, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Federal law enforcement agencies, State and local law enforcement agencies, Civil rights organizations, Professional law enforcement associations (HAPCOA, NAPOA, NBPA, NLPOA, NOBLE, IACP, FOP, etc.)

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Democrats.

• Jan 30, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 30, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

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