    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        WHEN BADGES BECOME TARGETS: HOW
                          ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT RHETORIC FUELS
                          VIOLENCE AGAINST OFFICERS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 3, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-29

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    63-126                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                    Andrew R. Garbarino, New York, Chairman

    Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Vice       Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
        Chair                                Ranking Member
    Michael Guest, Mississippi           Eric Swalwell, California
    Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           J. Luis Correa, California
    August Pfluger, Texas                Shri Thanedar, Michigan
    Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
    Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Daniel S. Goldman, New York
    Morgan Luttrell, Texas               Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
    Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
    Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
    Elijah Crane, Arizona                Julie Johnson, Texas, Vice Ranking
    Andrew Ogles, Tennessee                  Member
    Sheri Biggs, South Carolina          Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
    Gabe Evans, Colorado                 Nellie Pou, New Jersey
    Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania         James R. Walkinshaw, Virginia
    Brad Knott, North Carolina           Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
    Vince Fong, California               Al Green, Texas
    Vacant

                         Keighle Joyce, Staff Director
                      Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                           Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Statements

    Honorable Andrew R. Garbarino, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
      Security.......................................................     1
    Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      Homeland Security:
      Oral Statement.................................................     3
      Prepared Statement.............................................     5
    Honorable Troy A. Carter, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of Louisiana:
      Prepared Statement.............................................     6
    Honorable August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of Texas:
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7

                                   Witnesses

    Mr. Michael Hughes, Executive Director, Federal Law Enforcement
      Officers Association:
      Oral Statement.................................................     9
      Prepared Statement.............................................    10
    Mr. Jonathan F. Thompson, Executive Director, Chief Executive
      Officer, National Sheriffs' Association:
      Oral Statement.................................................    15
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16
    Mr. Patrick Yoes, National President, Fraternal Order of Police:
      Oral Statement.................................................    17
      Prepared Statement.............................................    19
    Mr. Daniel Hodges, Law Enforcement Officer, D.C. Metropolitan
      Police Department:
      Oral Statement.................................................    36
      Prepared Statement.............................................    38

                                 For the Record

    Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of California:
      Article, LA Times, November 6, 2025............................    46
      Letter From the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Office of
        the Sheriff, Sheriff-Coroner Don Barnes......................    55
    Honorable Delia C. Ramirez, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of Illinois:
      Letter, December 3, 2025.......................................    67
    Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of New York:
      Article, LA Times, December 2, 2025............................    73
      Article, NPR, October 10, 2025.................................    90
    Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      Homeland Security:
      Statement of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association..   123
      Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
        and the Fraternal Order of Police............................   123

                                   Appendix I

    Roll Call Vote...................................................   125
    Honorable Andrew R. Garbarino, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
      Security:
      Statement of the National Association of Police Organizations..   126

                                  Appendix II

    Question From Honorable James R. Walkinshaw for Daniel Hodges....   129
    Questions From Honorable James R. Walkinshaw for Jonathan
      Thompson.......................................................   130

                        WHEN BADGES BECOME TARGETS: HOW
                          ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT RHETORIC FUELS
                          VIOLENCE AGAINST OFFICERS

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, December 3, 2025

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Homeland Security,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Andrew R.
    Garbarino (Chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Garbarino, Guest, Gimenez,
    Pfluger, Gonzales, Luttrell, Strong, Brecheen, Crane, Ogles,
    Biggs, Evans, Mackenzie, Knott, Fong, Thompson of Mississippi,
    Correa, Magaziner, Goldman, Ramirez, Kennedy, McIver, Johnson,
    Hernandez, Pou, Walkinshaw, and Green.
        Chairman Garbarino. Committee on Homeland Security will
    come to order. Without objection, the Chair may declare the
    committee in recess at any point.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to explore the impact of
    anti-law enforcement sentiment has had on operational
    effectiveness and the measures Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement agencies are employing to ensure the safety,
    security, and mental well-being of their work force.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Gentlemen,
    you can sit down for now.
        Good morning. It was 1 week ago that two of our National
    Guard were shot while on duty right here in the District of
    Columbia. Sadly, Specialist Sarah Beckstrom passed away. She
    was only 20 years old. I ask that my colleagues join me in a
    moment of silence.
        Thank you.
        We are here today to examine a deeply troubling and
    increasingly dangerous trend, the rise of anti-law enforcement
    sentiment in our country, and the real-world consequences it
    has for the brave men and women serving in our law enforcement
    agencies across the country. I want to extend my sincere
    appreciation to Chairman Guest and Pfluger for their leadership
    in keeping this issue at the forefront of our committee's work.
    I am grateful to them for their efforts in helping to drive
    this conversation forward.
        I would also like to welcome Representatives Fong and
    Walkinshaw as our newest Members of the committee. We look
    forward to working with them to further our shared mission of
    securing the homeland.
        Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but
    the line between criticism and outright incitement is growing
    thinner, and too often, that line is being crossed. Our law
    enforcement officers play an essential role in upholding the
    rule of law, protecting national security, supporting our State
    and local partners, and keeping the American public safe. Yet
    when anyone seeks to portray law enforcement as enemies of the
    people, it signals that something is terribly wrong. Recent
    events across the country illustrate just how serious this
    problem is.
        In September, a gunman, who was believed to have been
    intentionally targeting ICE personnel, opened fire on officers
    in Dallas who were transporting detainees to an ICE facility,
    tragically killing two individuals in ICE custody in the
    process. That same facility had received a bomb threat only
    weeks earlier.
        These are not isolated incidents. They represent a brazen
    disregard for Federal, State, and local agents and officers as
    well as innocent bystanders. According to DHS, ICE officers are
    facing a shocking escalation in threats, including sharp
    increases in assaults and death threats since immigration
    enforcement activities began. This dramatic rise underscores
    the serious risks these officers face in the line of duty.
        The crisis is not limited to Federal law enforcement,
    though. In New York City, assaults on uniformed NYPD officers
    have surged by 63 percent over the last 6 years, with 970
    assaults recorded so far this year compared to 595 at the same
    point in 2019. These attacks have included alarming incidents
    such as the Times Square assault on Sergeant Aaron Domsky, the
    brutal mugging of Officer Chowdhury Nafees in the Bronx, and
    other violent encounters targeting officers during routine
    duties.
        The threat is national in scope. In just 6 days in July, 10
    officers were shot across Ohio, Kansas, and New York, leaving 3
    dead. Through the end of July, at least 56 new law enforcement
    officers had been shot in 45 ambush-style attacks.
        In September, an arrest warrant in York County,
    Pennsylvania, ended in a deadly ambush that killed 3 more
    officers. These are sadly only a few examples of the many
    violent attacks targeting law enforcement across the country.
        Much of this hostility is fueled by rhetoric that spreads
    rapidly on-line, rhetoric designed to delegitimize lawful
    authority and embolden violence against those who wear a badge.
    Enough is enough. These are not random or isolated events. They
    are symptoms of a broader attempt to undermine those who have
    sworn an oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
        Some perpetrators justify their actions with political
    grievances. The right to protest is sacred, but it ends where
    violence begins. When that inflammatory rhetoric leads to
    actions that endanger officers' lives, we enter dangerous
    territory. Rising hostility erodes morale, fuels burnout, and
    hinders recruitment and retention for law enforcement.
        Ultimately, that weakens public safety and national
    security, harming the very communities activists claim to
    defend. Law enforcement officers work tirelessly on behalf of
    our communities, and the situations they face on a daily basis
    take a heavy toll on their mental health, even in the best of
    times.
        In this current environment of increased hostility and
    violence, those challenges are amplified. Ensuring officers
    have the resources and support they need to protect their
    personal well-being has been a long-standing priority for me
    and many of my colleagues on this committee. I am proud to have
    worked in previous Congresses with Ranking Member Thompson on
    his legislation that would boost mental health and suicide
    prevention resources for DHS personnel, and I look forward to
    continuing that work with him now as Chairman.
        But let us be clear. Law enforcement personnel are public
    servants, not public figures. When taking the oath, they did
    not seek celebrity. They stepped forward to safeguard our
    Nation and uphold the laws enacted by this body.
        But that alone does not absolve them from facing any form
    of accountability. Public trust and public safety go hand-in-
    hand, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
    about how they believe agencies can strike an appropriate
    balance between officer safety and law enforcement
    accountability.
        Our witnesses today have seen the consequences of this
    rising harassment and violence first-hand. I hope their
    testimony reminds my colleagues and the American people that
    those who wear the badge are human beings whose dedication to
    safeguarding our country should never make them targets. This
    includes the local police who protect our communities around
    the country as well as U.S. Capitol Police officers and D.C.
    Metro Police who keep us safe here every day as we work to
    represent our constituents.
        Officer Hodges, I acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifices
    you have made to keep us all safe. As I said then and I believe
    now, violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and
    should always be condemned. We are and must remain a country of
    law and order.
        Today's hearing is not about silencing dissent or
    restricting free speech. It is about responsibility and
    recognizing that rhetoric has consequences and ensuring that
    officers can perform their duties without fear. We are reminded
    the dangers they face each year when names of fallen heroes are
    added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in
    Washington, DC, which honors Federal, State, local, and Tribal
    officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
        These solemn moments and acts of remembrance reinforce the
    reality that each of these officers are human beings who leave
    behind families and loved ones. We must not become desensitized
    to this violence, or willing to accept these dangerous trends
    as the new normal.
        To the brave men and women of law enforcement, you have our
    full respect and unwavering support. Thank you for your
    service.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
    Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman. Good morning. I welcome also our witnesses to this
    hearing. I also want to welcome our newest Democratic member to
    the committee, Representative James Walkinshaw of Virginia's
    11th District. Mr. Walkinshaw is serving on the committee's
    cybersecurity and border security subcommittees, and we look
    forward to his contributions to the committee's work.
        With that said, Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by offering
    my condolences in the wake of the tragic shooting of Specialist
    Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe in the Nation's
    capital last week. Our thoughts and the thoughts of all
    Americans continue to be with the families as they mourn
    Sarah's loss and pray for Andrew's recovery.
        Gun violence is the scourge of our country, and violence
    against troops and law enforcement officers is reprehensible.
    All Americans must condemn this violence, and the perpetrator
    must be held accountable.
        With that in mind, I appreciate Chairman Garbarino's
    holding today's hearing. Not only is this his first full
    committee hearing as Chairman, but it's also the committee's
    first hearing in 4\1/2\ months after the former Chairman left
    Congress, Republicans shut down the Government, and the Speaker
    sent the House home. It's past time for the committees to get
    back to work.
        It's my understanding that next week, we will have
    Secretary Kristi Noem before us at our annual Worldwide Threats
    hearing, and that too is also long overdue. Never in the
    history of the committee has a Secretary of Homeland Security
    hidden from Congressional oversight like she has, aided by a
    Republican majority that refuses to hold the Trump
    administration accountable.
        Secretary Noem has a lot to answer for, particularly about
    how she's using masked officers to terrorize communities,
    including American citizens, children, pregnant women, and
    seniors, putting law enforcement officers and the public at
    risk. We look forward to her appearance next week.
        As for today's hearing, I am pleased that Republicans want
    to address violence against police officers, but quite frankly,
    I just can't get over the hypocrisy. Republicans have spent the
    last 5 years defending the armed mob that attacked police
    officers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They demanded
    pardons for the perpetrators and cheered when President Trump
    issued them.
        Republicans don't care that pardoning people who threaten
    and attack officers would encourage others to do the same. They
    did it anyway. Many Republicans voted to put this plaque,
    staff--displaying the poster, in the Capitol honoring the
    service and sacrifice of law enforcement on January 6, but have
    since been silent on their leadership still refusing to hang
    the plaque for fear of angering President Trump.
        Republicans care more about being in President Trump's good
    graces than they do about honoring officers who put their lives
    on the line to protect the Capitol on January 6.
        Today, we are grateful to have one of those heroes, Officer
    Daniel Hodges, with us. His testimony to this committee, and
    his prior testimony before the Committee on January 6th Attack,
    which I was honored to chair, is as insightful as it is
    powerful. Officer Hodges responded to the Capitol on January 6
    where he and his fellow officers were beaten, tased, and
    crushed by an armed mob that wanted to block the peaceful
    transfer of Presidential power.
        I ask the clerk to play a video showing just a few moments
    of Officer Hodges and his fellow officers under attack at the
    Capitol on January 6. Please be advised that the video contains
    strong language.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Officer Hodges, no matter how
    many times you have seen that, I cannot imagine how difficult
    it is for you to watch that footage of yourself in the tunnel.
    There are no words to adequately describe that awful day, and
    no way to fully express our appreciation for what you and your
    fellow officers did to protect all of us who were gathered in
    the Capitol that day.
        I know the threats of violence against you and other
    officers did not end on January 6 but continue to this day. I
    thank you for being here and commend your bravery in continuing
    to speak out.
        Unfortunately, when it comes to condemning threats and
    violence from the far right, the silence from my colleagues on
    the other side is deafening. Until Republicans are willing to
    acknowledge the problem on their side of the political
    spectrum, and do something about it, their statements about
    protecting police officers are hypocritical. Unless they are
    willing to call out how the Trump administration's illegal
    enforcement tactics are endangering law enforcement and the
    public right now, their statements about protecting police
    officers are meaningless. I urge Republicans to join us in
    condemning attacks against police regardless of ideological
    motivation and begin holding the Trump administration
    accountable for its actions.
        I thank the witnesses again for joining us today. I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
                 Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                                December 3, 2025
        I want to begin by offering my condolences in the wake of the
    tragic shooting of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew
    Wolfe in the Nation's capital last week. Our thoughts, and the thoughts
    of all Americans, continue to be with the families as they mourn
    Sarah's loss and pray for Andrew's recovery. Gun violence is a scourge
    on our country, and violence against troops and law enforcement
    officers is reprehensible. All Americans must condemn this violence,
    and the perpetrator must be held accountable.
        With that in mind, I appreciate Chairman Garbarino holding today's
    hearing. Not only is this his first full committee hearing as Chairman,
    but it is also the committee's first hearing in 4\1/2\ months after the
    former Chairman left Congress, Republicans shut down the Government,
    and the Speaker sent the House home.
        It's past time for the committee to get back to business. It is my
    understanding that next week we will have Secretary Kristi Noem before
    us at our annual Worldwide Threats hearing, and that, too, is overdue.
        Never in the history of the committee has a Secretary of Homeland
    Security hidden from Congressional oversight like she has, aided by a
    Republican Majority that refuses to hold the Trump administration
    accountable. Secretary Noem has a lot to answer for, particularly about
    how she is using masked officers to terrorize communities--including
    American citizens, children, pregnant women, and seniors--putting law
    enforcement officers and the public at risk. We look forward to her
    appearance next week.
        As for today's hearing, I am pleased that Republicans want to
    address violence against police officers, but quite frankly I just
    can't get over their hypocrisy. Republicans have spent the last 5 years
    defending the armed mob that attacked police officers at the Capitol on
    January 6, 2021.
        They demanded pardons for the perpetrators and cheered when
    President Trump issued them. Republicans didn't care that pardoning
    people who threatened and attacked officers would encourage others to
    do the same, they did it anyway.
        Many Republicans voted to put this plaque in the Capitol honoring
    the service and sacrifice of law enforcement on January 6, but have
    been silent as their leadership still refuses to hang the plaque for
    fear of angering President Trump. Republicans care more about being in
    President Trump's good graces than they do about honoring the officers
    who put their lives on the line to protect the Capitol on January 6.
        Today, we are grateful to have one of those heroes, Officer Daniel
    Hodges, before us. His testimony to this committee and his prior
    testimony before the Committee on the January 6th Attack, which I was
    honored to chair, is as insightful as it is powerful.
        Officer Hodges responded to the Capitol on January 6, where he and
    his fellow officers were beaten, tased, and crushed by an armed mob
    that wanted to block the peaceful transfer of Presidential power. I ask
    the clerk to play a video showing just a few moments of Officer Hodges
    and his fellow officers under attack at the Capitol on January 6. Be
    advised the video contains strong language.
        Officer Hodges, no matter how many times you've seen it, I cannot
    imagine how difficult it is for you to watch that footage of yourself
    in the tunnel. There are no words to adequately describe that awful
    day, and no way to fully express our appreciation for what you and your
    fellow officers did to protect all of us who were gathered in the
    Capitol.
        I know the threats of violence against you and other officers did
    not end on January 6, but continue to this day. I thank you for being
    here and commend your bravery in continuing to speak out.
        Unfortunately, when it comes to condemning threats and violence
    from the far-right, the silence from my colleagues on the other side is
    deafening. Until Republicans are willing to acknowledge the problem on
    their side of the political spectrum and do something about it, their
    statements about protecting police officers are hypocritical.
        And unless they are willing to call out how the Trump
    administration's illegal enforcement tactics are endangering law
    enforcement and the public right now, their statements about protecting
    police officers are meaningless. I urge Republicans to join us in
    condemning attacks against police, regardless of ideological
    motivation, and begin holding the Trump administration accountable for
    its actions.

        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening
    statements may be submitted for the record.
        [The statements of Hons. Carter and Pfluger follow:]
                     Statement of Honorable Troy A. Carter
                                December 3, 2025
        Let me begin with this: I unequivocally condemn acts of violence--
    full stop. That includes violence against law enforcement officers,
    whose bravery and sacrifice keep our communities safe every single day.
        In New Orleans and across Louisiana, our local law enforcement
    officers put their lives on the line for their neighbors. Like we saw
    during the terrorist attack on Bourbon Street on New Year's Day this
    year, our dedicated officers run toward danger to protect others. They
    deserve our respect, our gratitude, and our unwavering support.
        As we discuss violence against law enforcement officers today, we
    cannot ignore the reality that gun violence in America is an urgent
    national crisis, and law enforcement officers are too often on the
    front lines of that crisis. More officers are killed in this country by
    firearms than in any other developed nation. No other advanced
    democracy asks its police to confront the sheer volume of guns we have
    on our streets. Supporting law enforcement means doing everything in
    our power to reduce the risks they face.
        Yet despite these realities, many in this chamber ignore that very
    real threat.
        While some Republicans claim to be the ``party of law and order,''
    their recent actions tell a different story. President Trump pardoned
    more than 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 attack, which
    left more than 140 police officers injured, including many of the
    Capitol police officers who protect us this very minute. The President
    continues to use rhetoric that encourages political violence, including
    against his adversaries. That does not support law enforcement; it
    endangers them, especially here in the halls of Congress.
        Now, many of the same Republicans who say they ``back the blue''
    are pushing proposals to cut funding for the very law enforcement
    agencies that keep our communities and our country safe. They have
    proposed cutting key Federal grant programs that support hiring,
    training, equipment, and community policing. They have attacked
    agencies that investigate violent crime, pursue drug trafficking, and
    combat terrorism. You cannot claim to support law enforcement while
    simultaneously cutting the resources they need to do their jobs.
        This should not be a wedge issue in America. Supporting law
    enforcement should be common ground, not a political football. We
    should all agree that officers deserve the training, tools, and support
    necessary to serve their communities with professionalism and fairness.
        Supporting law enforcement includes making sure our police
    departments have modern training to reduce the risks they face and to
    ensure every interaction with a constituent is safe and respectful--no
    matter their race, gender, creed, or background.
        This code of conduct also applies to our Federal officers in ICE
    and CBP. It is particularly relevant now as the Trump administration
    sends Homeland Security agents into my district in the greater New
    Orleans area today for immigration sweeps. These are militarized forces
    who are not trained in our local laws, not trained in community-based
    de-escalation, and do not know our neighborhoods or our people. That is
    a recipe for fear, confusion, and dangerous mistakes.
        I am especially concerned about the use of masked agents conducting
    raids. Law enforcement officers have an absolute duty to identify
    themselves because public trust and public safety depend on it. When an
    officer makes clear they are legitimate law enforcement--through proper
    identification, clear announcements, and visible credentials--it
    protects both the public and the officer. In a time when vigilantes,
    impersonators, and masked actors can create confusion or fear,
    transparency is essential to prevent dangerous misunderstandings or
    escalation. Clear identification ensures that individuals understand
    they are interacting with trained professionals accountable to the law,
    not someone seeking to intimidate, harm, or act outside legal
    authority. This fundamental safeguard reinforces constitutional rights,
    supports community trust, and upholds the badge's integrity and
    legitimacy.
        In New Orleans and cities across the Nation, Americans have taken
    to the streets to oppose these dangerous policing tactics.
        Peaceful protests to ensure equal treatment under the law are not
    anti-police. This is how Americans make their voices heard and gain
    meaningful change, which in turn builds trust, makes officers' jobs
    easier, and our communities safer.
        I urge my colleagues to reject political opportunism and the
    dangerous rhetoric that fuels violence. Let's stand together in support
    of our law enforcement officers and the reforms that keep both officers
    and the communities they serve safe. That is how we honor their
    service.
                                     ______

                     Statement of Honorable August Pfluger
                                December 3, 2025
        Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, Thank you, and thank you to our
    witnesses and all who have joined us for today's critical hearing. We
    meet at a moment when those who dedicate their lives to upholding the
    rule of law are facing an unprecedented wave of hostility and violence.
    Every day, the men and women who serve in law enforcement carry forward
    the torch first lit by our Nation's Founders, who understood that the
    success of a Nation depends upon its ability to maintain domestic order
    and pursue justice. To our law enforcement officers in the room today,
    and to those serving in communities across the country, I extend my
    sincere gratitude for your courage, your sacrifice, and your steadfast
    commitment, even as the threats against you continue to grow.
        We cannot ignore the deeply troubling reality before us: now more
    than at any other time, our Federal law enforcement officers are under
    attack, not by foreign adversaries, but by the very individuals they've
    sworn to protect. In my home State of Texas, an ICE field office in
    Dallas has been targeted not once, but twice in a matter of months.
    First, it was a bomb threat. Then, indiscriminate sniper fire. Compared
    to last year, violence against ICE law enforcement officers has risen
    by more than 1,150 percent. Far from being isolated, these attacks are
    part of a broader, dangerous pattern.
        This is unacceptable, and it is not just ICE officers being
    targeted; two National Guardsmen were recently attacked in our Nation's
    capital. CBP officers are facing vehicular attacks at a rate nearly 60
    percent higher than last year. Across agencies, Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement personnel are confronting heightened doxing,
    intimidation, and targeted violence. These incidents reflect a broader
    and deeply concerning transformation taking place across the country.
        The common denominator is a dramatic shift in how law enforcement
    officers are portrayed by elected officials, activist groups, and the
    media. Freedom of speech is foundational to our Republic, but there is
    a clear and undeniable line between dissent and incitement. When
    officers are dehumanized, when lawful arrests are labeled as
    ``kidnapping,'' and when men and women sworn to protect us are branded
    as ``Nazis'' or ``Gestapo,'' such rhetoric is far from harmless. It
    fosters an environment where violence becomes imaginable, then
    acceptable, and ultimately, inevitable. This narrative does more than
    endanger officers; it erodes public trust, undermines public safety,
    and weakens the very institutions designed to shield our communities
    from harm.
        Today's hearing is an important step toward confronting these
    realities head-on. Polarization and partisanship around law enforcement
    are relatively recent phenomena, and I hope that this hearing serves as
    a first step toward reframing the harmful rhetoric that currently
    shapes the debate. We must restore respect for those who uphold the
    law, reject the misinformation that fuels hostility, and reaffirm that
    violence against our officers--in any form--is intolerable.
        Our purpose today is clear: to expose the growing threats facing
    Federal law enforcement, to hold accountable those who spread or enable
    dangerous falsehoods, and to determine how Congress can strengthen the
    safety and resilience of those who protect us.
        I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and to working
    with my colleagues to ensure that the men and women of law enforcement
    receive the support, protection, and respect they deserve.

        Chairman Garbarino. I am pleased to have a highly
    distinguished panel of witnesses before us today. I ask that
    our witnesses please rise and raise their right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give
    before the Committee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of
    Representatives will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth, so help you God?
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative. Thank you all, and please be seated.
        I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
    Michael Hughes is the executive director of the Federal Law
    Enforcement Officers Association, where he leads strategic
    initiatives and oversees the organization's operations in
    support of its more than 33,000 members. Based in Washington,
    DC, he joined the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
    in March 2025 following a distinguished 34-year career in law
    enforcement.
        Jonathan Thompson is executive director and CEO of the
    National Sheriffs' Association, the Nation's preeminent
    nonprofit entity representing the interests of 3,080 sheriffs
    in the United States and their deputies. Previously, he was a
    principal with Refero Communications, helping organizations
    plan and implement their communication strategies on a wide
    variety of public affairs, public relations, and government
    outreach endeavors.
        Patrick Yoes is the national president for the Fraternal
    Order of Police. Over his career, Patrick has served on
    commissions and charitable and community service boards. He's a
    strong law enforcement advocate on holding leadership positions
    on a State, local, and national FOP boards. Nearly 36 years as
    an active law enforcement officer, Patrick retired in 2020 from
    the St. Charles Sheriff's Office, the sole law enforcement
    agency for the St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, a suburb 18 miles
    west of New Orleans.
        Daniel Hodges is an officer of the Metropolitan Police
    Department, District of Columbia, where he served since 2014.
    Before joining MPD, he served in the Virginia National Guard.
    Within MPD, he is assigned to patrol duties and is a member of
    the department's civil disturbance unit 42, which handles large
    demonstrations, crowd control, and emergency riot response.
        I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
        I now recognize Mr. Hughes for 5 minutes to summarize his
    opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LAW
                    ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and
    Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you on behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement
    Officers Association, representing more than 33,000 Federal
    criminal investigators, police officers, and law enforcement
    professionals nationwide. I spent more than 34 years in Federal
    law enforcement as an investigator, supervisor, senior
    executive, and political appointee. I led the U.S. Marshals
    Office here in Washington, DC, and concluded my Government
    service as director of INTERPOL Washington, coordinating our
    Nation's global law enforcement efforts with INTERPOL and
    international partners. Today, I am honored to serve as FLEOA's
    executive director, advocating for the men and women who
    protect our country every day.
        Throughout my career, one thing has remained constant:
    Federal officers remain unwavering in their oath to the
    Constitution and their duty to enforce the laws Congress
    enacts, regardless of the political environment. What has
    changed is the environment in which they serve. It has grown
    increasingly hostile with rising violence, threats, and on-line
    harassment directed at officers and, increasingly, at their
    families. Risk has always been part of Federal law enforcement.
    The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial stands as a
    solemn reminder of the ultimate sacrifices officers make when
    carrying out a sworn duty to protect and serve others.
        But what we are seeing today is unprecedented in scope and
    intensity. The heightened polarization surrounding Federal law
    enforcement's role in immigration enforcement and efforts to
    reduce violent crime in major cities has placed officers in
    greater jeopardy than at any point in my career. In 2024, the
    FBI reported more than 85,000 assaults on law enforcement, the
    highest number in a decade. Ambush attacks continue to climb.
    ICE officers alone have seen assaults increase more than 1,100
    percent this year. These are staggering numbers that reflect
    the very real dangers officers face simply for carrying out the
    laws that Congress has enacted.
        The tragic ambush attack last week only blocks from the
    White House that killed West Virginia National Guard Specialist
    Sarah Beckstrom and critically injured Staff Sergeant Andrew
    Wolfe makes this painfully clear. They had been sworn in less
    than 24 hours earlier in support of joint efforts to reduce
    violent crime. We mourn Specialist Beckstrom and pray for
    Sergeant Wolfe's recovery.
        The danger isn't limited to violence in the field. Doxxing,
    digital harassment, and threats aimed at family members have
    become disturbingly common. In one instance, individuals
    followed an ICE agent home, live-streamed it, and posted his
    address on-line. These are not hypothetical threats. They have
    real, lasting consequences.
        Constructive criticism of law enforcement is healthy, and
    accountability is essential. But what we are seeing today from
    some public figures, segments of the media, and even some
    elected officials is not accountability, it is vilification.
    When officers are depicted as political actors, we're
    adversaries rather than public servants, that rhetoric fuels
    hostility and makes already difficult jobs even more dangerous.
        Federal officers are your neighbors. They are parents,
    veterans, volunteers in their communities, even family members.
    Reducing them to political characters is inaccurate, corrosive,
    and dangerous. We believe strongly in accountability, but
    accountability must be paired with protection. Officers who
    fear for their safety or the safety of their families cannot
    perform at their best. At a time when nearly a third of our
    Federal law enforcement work force is eligible for retirement,
    and recruitment and retention is already a challenge, this
    rising threat environment poses a serious national security
    concern.
        Congress has tools to address this. My written statement
    outlines several longstanding but urgently needed measures.
    Taken together, they would send a strong message that Congress
    stands with those who uphold the law. Federal officers enforce
    the laws you enact. They protect our borders, communities, and
    national security out of a deep sense of duty. The rise in
    targeted violence and corrosive rhetoric threatens their safety
    and erodes public trust.
        We cannot allow this trend to continue. Protecting those
    who protect us is not a partisan issue. It is a national
    responsibility. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Michael Hughes
                                December 3, 2025
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and
    distinguished Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today on behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Oficers
    Association (FLEOA). FLEOA is a national organization representing more
    than 33,000 Federal criminal investigators, police officers, and law
    enforcement professionals. Our members perform a vital and unique role
    in protecting this Nation. This includes ensuring lawful trade and
    commerce, stopping the spread of fentanyl and other dangerous
    substances from entering our communities, preventing terrorism and the
    proliferation of transnational criminal organizations, and protecting
    officials of all three branches of government both at home and abroad.
        I have served in Federal law enforcement for more than 34 years,
    decades spent not only enforcing the Nation's laws, but mentoring
    younger officers, supervising field operations, coordinating across
    agencies, serving as a senior executive and political appointee leading
    the U.S. Marshals Office here in the District of Columbia, and leading
    the United States' global law enforcement initiatives with INTERPOL as
    the director of INTERPOL Washington. I now proudly serve as FLEOA's
    executive director, dedicated to advocating for the safety and well-
    being of the Federal law enforcement professionals who protect and
    serve this Nation.
        Throughout my career, I have witnessed many shifts in policy,
    public sentiment, and national priorities. During these times of
    transition, the one constant has been the men and women who wear the
    badge and remain steadfast in their commitment to the Constitution and
    enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. Today, however, the environment
    in which these professionals serve is increasingly hostile, marked by
    rising levels of violence, threats against the lives of officers and
    their families, and on-line harassment. We saw evidence of this in last
    Wednesday's brazen and premeditated ambush attack just blocks from the
    White House that claimed the life of West Virginia National Guard
    Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and left Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe critically
    wounded. Both had been sworn in less than 24 hours prior to the attack
    to assist Federal law enforcement and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police
    Department in reducing violent crime and enhancing public safety in the
    Nation's capital. FLEOA mourns with the family of Specialist Beckstrom
    and offer our thoughts and prayers to Sgt. Wolfe and his family for a
    full and speedy recovery.
        While the motive for last Wednesday's ambush attack is still under
    investigation at the time of this writing, the unfortunate reality is
    that it was not unique, nor will it be the last such attack on those
    who protect and serve our communities. And the title of today's
    hearing, ``When Badges Become Targets,'' accurately captures the
    experience that far too many Federal officers are forced to confront,
    and which is in part driven by increasingly hostile personal attacks
    that undermine their legitimacy and endangers their safety.
        My testimony today will focus on the apolitical, oath-driven nature
    of Federal law enforcement, the evolving threat landscape, the role
    that anti-law enforcement rhetoric plays in the increased threats to
    law enforcement officers and their families, the need for both
    accountability and protection, and recommendations for Congressional
    action.
        the role of federal law enforcement and the presidential mandate
        Federal law enforcement is guided by a mission that is deliberately
    insulated from politics: to abide by the Constitution and enforce the
    laws that Congress writes. Presidents of both parties have relied on
    Federal agencies to address urgent threats to public safety, and every
    officer is charged to carry out their responsibilities with neutrality,
    integrity, and professionalism.
        Yet within these boundaries, it is common for administrations to
    have different priorities when it comes to the allocation of resources,
    personnel, and enforcement activities to address pressing threats to
    public safety and national security. The most transformational changes
    in my career came during the George W. Bush administration as a result
    of the heinous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the passage
    of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act.
    Agencies across the Government were realigned, moved between Cabinet
    agencies, and granted expanded authorities and missions. Federal law
    enforcement extended its traditional emphasis on enforcement of the
    criminal laws and crime prevention to include counterterrorism and
    became part of a global efort to reduce this Nation's vulnerability to
    terrorism. And we saw walls between agencies break down and the
    prioritization of information and intelligence sharing between Federal
    agencies and our State and local partners through entities such as the
    Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Under President Biden, Federal agencies
    intensified operations targeting fentanyl trafficking across the U.S.-
    Mexico border and within domestic distribution networks. Each
    administration, faced with evolving threats, has directed Federal law
    enforcement resources accordingly. Similarly, President Trump has
    tasked Federal agencies over the past year with strengthening
    enforcement efforts particularly against violent crime, organized
    criminal networks, transnational criminal organizations, and the
    trafficking of illicit fentanyl.
        What does not change is the oath each officer swears, which is to
    support and defend the Constitution; to perform duties objectively,
    impartially, and with integrity; and to uphold the rule of law,
    regardless of which party controls the Executive branch. When officers
    fail to meet this standard, there are robust mechanisms for oversight
    and discipline. Federal agencies maintain internal affairs offices,
    Inspectors General conduct independent reviews, and Congress exercises
    statutory oversight. Accountability is not an afterthought. It is a
    core pillar of the profession. And while these mechanisms help to
    enhance public trust in law enforcement, little is being done to
    enhance law enforcement's trust that they will be protected when the
    environment around them becomes increasingly dangerous.
                   a rising and dangerous threat environment
        Over the past year, the threat environment facing Federal officers
    has grown more volatile. While national crime data often aggregate
    local, State, and Federal incidents, the overall trend is rising levels
    of violence against the Nation's law enforcement officers, with the FBI
    reporting more than 85,000 assaults on law enforcement officers in
    2024, a 10-year high.\1\ Officers at all levels have also faced an
    alarming increase in ambush-style attacks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``FBI report: Violent crime fell in 2024, but assaults on
    officers reached 10-year high,'' CNN.com (Aug. 5, 2025). Last visited
    Nov. 28, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to data from the Justice Departments COPS Office and the
    Fraternal Order of Police, in 2024 alone, there were 62 ambush-style
    attacks resulting in 80 officers shot and 18 killed.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Law Enforcement Officers Shot in the Line of Duty: 2024 Year-
    End Summary,'' Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
    Department of Justice, April 2025. Last visited Nov. 28, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal officers have not been exempted from violent and targeted
    attacks. They execute high-risk warrants, disrupt transnational
    criminal networks, investigate violent offenders, and interdict
    narcotics and weapons. These roles have historically put them in direct
    contact with individuals who are often heavily-armed, increasingly
    desperate, and emboldened by anti-law enforcement narratives
    circulating on-line. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
    here in Washington, D.C. bears eternal witness to the dangers that law
    enforcement officers face on a daily basis, and the high cost of
    carrying out a sworn duty to protect and serve others.
        But I would suggest that what we are seeing in 2025 is truly
    unprecedented. The polarization and politicization of Federal law
    enforcement's role in enforcing the Nation's immigration laws and
    increasing public safety in major U.S. cities has placed law
    enforcement officers in greater physical jeopardy than any I have
    witnessed in my 34-year career. Just last week, the Department of
    Homeland Security reported a more than 1,150 percent increase in
    assaults and violence against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) officers this year compared to the same period in 2024.\3\ DHS
    also announced the arrest of a high school assistant principal from
    Virginia and his brother who were plotting to travel to Las Vegas to
    obtain weapons in a plot to attack ICE agents and police officers.\4\
    In October, ICE-Homeland Security Investigations arrested a Florida man
    who made on-line threats to kill ICE agents, spewing hate-filled
    rhetoric on-line such as ``Shoot the ICE Nazis dead.''\5\ Meanwhile,
    Mexican drug cartels have reportedly ofered a ``tiered'' bounty system
    for the murder of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    officers and have deployed spotters to provide the cartels with
    information on the movements of CBP and ICE personnel.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Sanctuary Politicians' Rhetoric Fuels More than 1,150 Percent
    Increase in Violence Against ICE Law Enforcement,'' Department of
    Homeland Security press release (Nov. 24, 2025). Last visited Nov. 26,
    2025.
        \4\ ``Virginia High School Assistant Principal and Brother Arrested
    for Plotting to Kill ICE Law Enforcement Officers,'' Dept. of Homeland
    Security press release (Nov. 26, 2025). Last visited Nov. 26, 2025.
        \5\ ``HSI Arrests Florida Man Who Posted Death Threats Online to
    ICE Officers,'' Dept. of Homeland Security press release (Oct. 31,
    2025). Last visited Nov. 26, 2025.
        \6\ ``Cartels issuing bounties up to $50,000 for hits on ICE, CBP
    agents: DHS,'' ABC News (Oct. 14, 2025), last visited Nov. 26, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But the threats now extend well beyond the physical:
       Doxing and digital harassment have escalated, with officers'
            personal information including their home addresses,
            photographs, and family details, posted on-line in attempts to
            intimidate or retaliate.
       Targeted on-line campaigns often arise after routine
            enforcement actions, sometimes fueled by misinformation or
            deliberate mischaracterizations.
       Family members of officers report receiving threatening
            messages or being followed, a chilling and unacceptable
            development.
        Federal officers have had to relocate their families, change
    established routines, and/or reduce their public presence due to
    credible threats--threats that, only a decade ago, would have been
    considered extreme outliers.
        In one instance, 3 individuals were indicted on charges of
    illegally doxing an ICE agent after following the agent home and
    livestreaming their pursuit and posting the agent's address on-line.\7\
    In another case, a Federal grand jury charged 2 individuals with
    knowingly transmitting threats to injure a DHS ICE deportation officer
    and his wife.\8\ Such events, once rare, are now disturbingly common.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Federal Grand Jury Charges Three Women with Following ICE
    Agent Home from Work and Livestreaming His Home Address on Instagram,''
    Dept. of Justice press release (Sept. 25 2025). Last visited Nov. 30,
    2025.
        \8\ ``Social Media Provocateurs Charged with Threatening to Harm
    Federal Agent and His Wife,'' Dept. of Justice press release (Oct. 7,
    2025). Last visited Nov. 30, 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         the impact of rhetoric in rising threats against federal law
                                  enforcement
        Criticism of law enforcement can be constructive. Law enforcement
    is a dynamic profession, not static, and is constantly evolving to
    better serve the goals of public safety and impartial enforcement of
    the Nation's laws. We see that in the way we conduct investigations,
    utilizing an array of new tools and systems that were not in place even
    10 years ago such as the increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    to analyze vast amounts of data and help identify crime patterns. The
    personal safety of law enforcement has been enhanced as well, from
    improvements in bullet-resistant body armor to new containment devices
    that prevent officers from being inadvertently exposed to fentanyl. The
    same is true for systems of accountability for law enforcement
    personnel. The wide-spread adoption of body-worn cameras and
    multiplicity of social media platforms has added never-before-conceived
    means to address situations when law enforcement officers have been
    accused of misconduct or acting improperly.
        Following the heinous death of George Floyd in 2020, FLEOA worked
    closely with both the first Trump administration and then with the
    Biden administration to address several reforms to law enforcement
    practices, policies, and protocols, including use of force. For Federal
    law enforcement, these efforts resulted in reforms that struck the
    right balance between understanding the public need for accountability
    and the need to ensure all communities are safe and protected.
        As we have seen over the years, criticism of law enforcement
    policies and practices can be constructive and lead to needed and
    positive reforms. But what we are witnessing now in terms of the
    rhetoric from some public personalities in traditional media and social
    media, and from some elected officials at every level of government is
    neither constructive nor beneficial. It is outright vilification.
        We have seen the consequences of this type of vilification in
    politics in recent years, when policy disagreements seemingly
    rationalize violence as the only solution, and further an ``us vs.
    them'' mentality that has poisoned our political discourse. The
    attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022, the 2025
    targeted assassination of Minnesota State Representative Melissa
    Hortman and her husband, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the two
    assassination attempts last year on President Trump. These are all
    examples of how hostile political rhetoric can escalate into lethal
    action, and why toning down, countering, and ultimately reducing
    incendiary rhetoric is essential to lowering the temperature of our
    politics and preventing future acts of violence.
        When public figures in particular portray Federal law enforcement
    as ``the enemy,'' or as participants in advancing a partisan political
    agenda, it degrades trust and fuels hostility. These characterizations
    blur the distinction between policy disagreements and the individuals
    sworn to carry out lawful directives. This rhetoric reverberates across
    social and traditional media, often morphing into personalized attacks,
    conspiracy theories, and calls for harassment against the men and women
    of law enforcement.
        Federal law enforcement officers are not nameless, faceless
    automatons. They are parents, veterans, volunteers, and community
    members. Many serve in the very communities where they were raised.
    They shop in the same stores, attend the same schools, and share the
    same hopes as the people they protect. Reducing them to political
    caricatures is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous.
        This is especially true when elected leaders use their status and
    microphones to cast suspicion upon or express contempt for law
    enforcement and unintentionally signal to hostile individuals that
    officers are legitimate targets. This erodes public safety and
    undermines cooperative policing eforts essential to addressing violent
    crime, drug trafficking, and homeland security threats.
                accountability, professionalism, and protection
        Federal law enforcement welcomes accountability. It ensures the
    public's trust and strengthens our institutions. But accountability
    must be paired with protection--protection from violence, intimidation,
    and harassment.
        Officers who fear for their safety or that of their families cannot
    perform at their best. Morale declines, recruitment becomes more
    difficult, and retention sufers. Protecting law enforcement is not a
    partisan political exercise. It is a matter of national security. The
    threats we face, from fentanyl traffickers to violent offenders to
    transnational criminal organizations, grow more complex each year.
        Over the past several years, Federal agencies have also faced
    significant staffing challenges that pose a direct risk to officer
    safety, including dificulties in attracting highly-qualified applicants
    and a looming retirement cliff of experienced officers. As recently as
    October 2023, OPM reported that roughly 34 percent (more than 45,000)
    of Federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire within the
    next 5 years. This is the post-9/11 generation, the brave men and women
    who, much like today, answered the call to help protect this Nation.
        Unfortunately, the current pay, benefits, and personnel structures
    disincentivize retention and put Federal law enforcement agencies at a
    competitive disadvantage in recruiting top talent. In particular, the
    statutory provisions governing law enforcement retirement and
    compensation, while perhaps innovative when they were enacted in the
    1980's and early 1990's, have become antiquated and have not kept pace
    with State and local governments. Federal law enforcement officers are
    also the only employees in the public or private sector who are
    entitled to overtime pay, can be required to work unlimited hours of
    overtime work, but can only be compensated up to an antiquated ``cap''
    on overtime pay. This has led to widespread pay compression, especially
    in high cost-of-living areas to which our members are assigned, and
    harms retention of experienced officers.
        The rise in attacks and assaults on Federal law enforcement is
    occurring at a time when we are already facing a severe recruitment and
    retention crisis in nearly every agency. And many of these heroes are
    putting their lives on the line daily without even receiving adequate
    compensation. Now, more than ever, we need legislation that supports
    and protects our officers. That includes addressing the problems caused
    by the Federal pay cap that arbitrarily limits the amount of overtime
    pay officers and agents can receive. This is one of the most serious
    personnel issues facing our profession because it greatly undermines
    morale, recruitment, and retention.
            legislative recommendations to strengthen officer safety
        In light of the rapidly-increasing threat environment faced by our
    Nation's Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers, FLEOA has
    consistently worked with Members of Congress and other law enforcement
    stakeholder groups to prioritize the passage of legislation to enhance
    officer safety. Many of these have been around for years and
    unfortunately have not gained the wide-spread support or attention they
    deserve. That is why FLEOA urges Congress to consider the following
    actions to help protect and support our law enforcement officers who
    work every day to keep our communities safe:
        1. Strengthen 18 U.S.C.  111
        This statute criminalizes assaulting or resisting Federal officers.
            Congress should review potential enhancements or clarifications
            to ensure that serious attacks, especially those involving
            premeditation or on-line targeting, carry appropriate
            penalties. FLEOA spearheaded a similar efort in the 117th
            Congress to pass the ``Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal
            Officers and Employees Protection Act'' which amend sections
            111, 115, and 1114 of Title 18, U.S. Code, and is named after 2
            hero ICE agents who were victims of an ambush attack by a
            Mexican drug cartel in 2011 that claimed the life of Agent
            Zapata.
        2. The ``Protect and Serve Act'' (H.R. 1551/S. 167)
        This bipartisan bill would create Federal penalties of up to 10
            years for knowingly attempting to injure a law enforcement
            officer, and up to life in cases involving death or attempted
            murder. This measure has strong support among national law
            enforcement organizations.
        3. The ``Back the Blue Act'' (H.R. 4310)
        This legislation would expand Federal protections for officers
            across all levels--Federal, State, and local--and impose tough
            penalties on those who kill or attempt to kill law enforcement
            officers.
        4. The ``Blue Shield Privacy Act'' (H.R. 4828)
        This bill would enhance protections for Federal law enforcement
            officers and their families against doxing by expanding what is
            considered ``restricted personal information'' for which it is
            illegal to share publicly to harm Federal officers or their
            immediate family. Specifically, this bill would designate as
            ``restricted personal information'' items such as license plate
            numbers, biometric information, workplace address, school
            address, and GPS coordinates, making it punishable by up to 5
            years in prison to share this information publicly for the
            purpose of threatening, intimidating, or inciting violence
            against a Federal officer or their immediate family.
        5. Strengthen 18 USC  912
        This statute prohibits impersonating a Federal officer while
            demanding or obtaining something of value in that pretended
            character. Congress should review potential enhancements by
            removing the requirement of a specific financial benefit.
        Together, these measures would help deter violence, reinforce the
    seriousness of attacking law enforcement, and send a clear message that
    Congress stands behind the rule of law and those sworn to uphold it.
                                   conclusion
        Federal law enforcement officers enforce the laws enacted by
    Congress--laws that protect our citizens, our borders, our communities,
    and our national security. They do so out of a deep sense of duty to
    the Constitution and to the American people.
        Yet the rise in targeted violence and the corrosive rhetoric
    directed at these public servants have created an atmosphere that
    jeopardizes officer safety and erodes public trust. We cannot allow
    this trend to continue. Protecting those who protect us is an essential
    responsibility of this body.
        I urge Congress to reaffirm its commitment to the men and women of
    Federal law enforcement by strengthening protections, condemning
    harmful rhetoric, and ensuring that officers have the resources,
    respect, and legislative backing they need to continue their vital
    work.
        Thank you for your time and dedication to this issue. I look
    forward to answering your questions.

        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.
        I now recognize Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes to summarize his
    opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF JONATHAN THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHIEF
           EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor, and
    it's deeply humbling to be invited to speak with you today.
    Ranking Member Thompson, as always, it's an honor to be with
    you as well. I welcome the newest Member of the committee. You
    have your hands full. You have your hands full.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, the end of this year marks the
    end of my 11th year with the National Sheriffs' Association,
    and over the period of that time, I have had the blessing to
    represent the Nation's 3,081 sheriffs. So I'm going to deviate
    from my summary, and I'm going to speak to you from the heart
    for just a few minutes. I hope you'll bear with me.
        Like my colleague on the right--I would endorse 99.9
    percent of what he just said. It's in my written statement as
    well. Those things need to be addressed by this committee and
    by every single Member on this committee, Republican and
    Democrat, because the public is in danger as we speak.
        The rhetoric coming from the top, calling officers Nazis
    and Gestapo, it better stop right now. You are inflaming
    dangerous circumstances. You're attacking the people that wake
    up every single day to do one thing. They put on their
    uniforms. They put on their star. They are paid to do a job, a
    job that is to enforce the laws of this country, the laws that
    have been passed by those that have been elected by the people
    of this country. Those are the laws that we in this Nation
    built over decades and centuries to respect the civility of our
    behavior.
        They're doing so because of one reason. They're not doing
    it--and I'll tell you why--they're not doing it for the money,
    as these three gentlemen can attest to. They're not doing it
    for the glory, as these three gentlemen and others will attest
    to. They're doing it for one reason: for public service, for
    public safety.
        In my 11 years, I have had the distasteful job to sign more
    than 2,300 condolence letters to officers, to deputies, to the
    agencies that they represent. These are humans. These are
    family members. These are people that deserve our standing
    ovation every single day. They are no different than our
    military except in one way: Every day they see the worst, the
    worst of society, the worst. They have to wake up and do it
    again tomorrow.
        They deserve not just a pat on the back. They deserve your
    respect, every one of yours' respect, Republicans and
    Democrats. They deserve your ``thank you.'' They deserve the
    right to be treated with civility. When you in this body choose
    not to do so, you disrespect them. You disrespect yourself. You
    disrespect the citizens in your district, the people that
    elected you.
        It's appalling. I implore you, all of you, to throw down
    those barriers of partisanship and recognize that our Nation
    has threats, the threat matrix that you'll hear from the
    Secretary, God bless her, next week, have now been added to by
    one. The rhetoric of our leaders calling out and stating
    things, as I said, as Nazis and Gestapo tactics. Ladies and
    gentlemen, you have nothing to do but read history. There is no
    Nazis acting in the law enforcement community of this country.
    We are certainly not--we are certainly not living in 1939
    Germany. When I hear it, I cry.
        There is no greater honor for me to sit here before all of
    you and have an honest discussion about what good and what
    wrong may occur in law enforcement. They are not perfect. When
    there's a problem, they need to be held accountable. The
    leaders of our respective groups recognize and have even
    acknowledged that. The will of the people changes in this
    country, and tactics to keep them safe change as well.
        I want to conclude with just a couple of comments.
    Dehumanizing rhetoric breeds violence. There is research on
    this. Professor Pape at the University of Chicago will release
    a study next week that shows exactly what I'm talking about. It
    doesn't motivate your base. It doesn't make more donors give
    you money. It creates lone wolves. It creates people like what
    we saw last week put--whose name I won't even mention--who held
    a handgun to the head of that specialist. Shame. Shame on using
    that rhetoric.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Jonathan F. Thompson
                                December 3, 2025
        Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
    Members of the committee: Thank you for holding this hearing on ``When
    Badges Become Targets: How Anti-Law Enforcement Rhetoric Fuels Violence
    Against Officers,'' and for the opportunity to testify.
        I am Jonathan Thompson, executive director and CEO of the National
    Sheriffs' Association (NSA), representing over 3,000 elected sheriffs
    and more than 10,000 public safety officials nationwide. The NSA is
    committed to professionalism, education, training, and supporting law
    enforcement at all levels.
                                 brief summary
        Violence against law enforcement is rising sharply, with record-
    high assaults and officer shootings. This trend is fueled by growing
    anti-law enforcement rhetoric, amplified through social media and
    public discourse, and coupled with harassment tactics like doxing and
    swatting. This rhetoric dehumanizes officers and puts their families at
    risk. Federal action is urgently required to protect those who serve
    our communities.
                             the threat and trends
        We see a disturbing rise in verbal and physical attacks. In 2023,
    79,091 officers were assaulted with 466 shot, the highest in a decade;
    and as of October 2025, 285 officers have been shot this year with 38
    fatalities, including 58 ambush-style attacks. These are not mere
    statistics--they represent families living in constant fear. On-line
    platforms have increased coordinated threats, while inconsistent
    prosecutions embolden offenders.
                        contributing factors and threats
       Anti-law-enforcement rhetoric normalizes hostility by
            portraying officers as enemies rather than protectors.
       Digital threats include doxing, swatting, and AI-enabled
            harassment that escalate risks to officers and their families.
       Lax prosecutorial responses leave gaps in accountability.
                       insights on rhetoric and violence
        Some Members of this Congress use inflammatory terms loosely and
    seek to minimize them. Regardless of party, such language serves one
    purpose: to incite violence. However, research by Professor Robert Pape
    of the University of Chicago demonstrates a counterproductive outcome.
    This rhetoric neither raises more campaign funds nor increases voter
    enthusiasm. Instead, it motivates individuals and groups who seek
    justification to attack--whether by beating, stabbing, or shooting--and
    then seek forgiveness. There should be no forgiveness from this
    committee, its Members, or any elected leader for such incitement.
        I experienced the violence of the 1960's first-hand and understand
    that words matter and have consequences. Modern examples abound--from
    Aldo Moro to recent political leaders and extremists using religion to
    fuel violence. There is no difference between an Ayatollah calling for
    death to ``devils'' and an elected official using violent epithets to
    describe law enforcement. Our 230,000 deputies serve communities daily;
    while not perfect, they strive for justice--and when they fail, the
    justice system holds them accountable. But for 900,000 law enforcement
    officers, equal respect and protection from incitement must come from
    you. Derisive names only undermine the very people doing your lawful
    bidding. If leaders fail to act responsibly, the cycle of violence may
    one day come full circle, and when law enforcement is needed most,
    respect and support should be their reward--not scorn.
                              federal shortcomings
        There is no consistent Federal penalty for doxing or swatting law
    enforcement. Monitoring and reporting systems are inadequate,
    especially for small and rural agencies lacking cyber capabilities.
    Accountability for violent offenders is weak, and no national
    protections exist for officers' personal information on-line.
                          three clear recommendations
        1. Pass comprehensive, anti-doxing and anti-swatting legislation
            explicitly covering law enforcement officers and their
            families, with mandatory minimum sentences for offenses
            targeting first responders.
        2. Establish a coordinated Federal task force (DHS and DOJ) to
            monitor and respond swiftly to on-line threats against law
            enforcement personnel.
        3. Increase funding for cyber threat intelligence units, especially
            in small and rural sheriffs' offices, and launch a bipartisan
            national campaign promoting civil discourse and condemning
            violence against law enforcement and first responders.
                                   conclusion
        When rhetoric dehumanizes, violence follows. Congress must lead now
    to restore civility, reject hostility, and affirm that violence against
    law enforcement officers is unacceptable and un-American. The brave men
    and women who wear the badge ask you to lead--do so now. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify; I stand ready to work with this committee
    to protect those who protect us all.

        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
        I now recognize Mr. Yoes for 5 minutes to summarize his
    opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF PATRICK YOES, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER
                               OF POLICE

        Mr. Yoes. Chairman Garbarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and
    Members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    speak with you today on behalf of the 382,000 local, State, and
    Federal members of the Fraternal Order of Police, our Nation's
    oldest and largest law enforcement organization. I'm elated
    that you're having this hearing today, for it's long overdue. I
    want to thank each of you for the opportunity to talk about the
    Fraternal Order of Police's No. 1 legislative priority.
        Our Nation is facing an epidemic of targeted violence
    against law enforcement officers, an epidemic supported by real
    data that cannot be ignored. Fraternal Order of Police
    collects, verifies, and publishes the most comprehensive data
    in the Nation on officers shot, officers shot and killed, and
    officers ambushed, because no one else was doing it. No Federal
    agency or national database was tracking these incidents when a
    sense of urgency that this crisis demands. We built a system
    from the ground up methodically, transparent, and accurate.
        In 2019, we formalized that partnership with the COPS
    Office through a Federal grant allowing us to expand our work.
    Today we provide monthly reports to the COPS Office, policy
    makers, the media, and the public. The COPS Office publishes a
    national report every spring based on Fraternal Order of Police
    collected data. The truth is undeniable.
        Last year, there were 342 officers that were shot in the
    line of duty, and 50 were killed. There were 62 ambush-style
    attacks and 79 officers shot, 18 of which were killed. In
    November--as of November 30 of this year, 314 officers have
    been shot and 43 killed. There have been 62 ambush attacks
    resulting in 21 deaths.
        In fact, since we've started collecting this data
    comprehensively in 2018, a little less than 7 years ago, 2,553
    officers have been shot. Four hundred fifteen have been killed.
    In the past 5 years, there have been 620 officers shot in 483
    separate ambush attacks, killing 135 officers. These are not
    selective numbers. They are real, verified incidents. These
    numbers have no bias. They have no agenda. They are just real.
        They reveal an unmistakable trend. That is, that we have an
    epidemic. Like all epidemics, it has causes. The FBI's
    assailant study found that nearly one-third of cop killers
    self-identified as being motivated by the narrative that
    portrays law enforcement as the villain. That narrative used
    for political gain is amplified across social media platforms
    and other means, and all too often goes unchallenged. It's not
    harmless rhetoric. It is fuel. We have seen this fuel unite in
    cities and towns, large and small, all across America.
        Officers have been murdered while eating lunch, sitting in
    patrol cars, driving home to their families at the end of their
    shift. In fact, according to a 2017 report from the COPS
    Office, more than one-half of the ambushed officers killed
    weren't even on a call. They were targeted because they were
    wearing a badge.
        Just last week, not far from where we sit today, that
    epidemic added two more victims when two National Guardsmen
    fulfilling their law enforcement role were targeted and
    brutally attacked simply because of the uniform they wore.
        This violence is not hypothetical. It is not isolated. It
    certainly is not slowing down. It's not about tactics. It's not
    about policy debate. It's about hatred stoked, spread, and
    normalized until someone acts on it.
        The Protect and Serve Act would provide the Department of
    Justice with the means to prosecute these targeted attacks. In
    2018, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously cleared this
    act and advanced it to the House floor, where it overwhelmingly
    passed in a bipartisan vote of 382 to 35. It failed to become
    law in that session of Congress when the States chose not to--
    Senate chose not to consider it.
        Today, even with ambush attacks continuing to rise, the
    House Judiciary Committee will not move this act forward.
        When someone calls 9-1-1, we answer. We always answer.
    Well, we are the ones that are calling now. We're calling on
    Congress, we're pleading with Congress, and we ask you to
    answer that call. Stand up against the rhetoric that fuels the
    violence against law enforcement officers. Acknowledge this
    epidemic for what it is, a stain on the very fabric of society.
    Send a strong message to America's law enforcement
    professionals. Let them know that you recognize this violence
    toward them and you're committed to end this lethal trend. Let
    America's peace officers know that you appreciate the job that
    they do and you've got their backs.
        It is time to send a strong message to anyone that would
    target law enforcement officers. Let them know--let these
    criminals know that attacks on a law enforcement officer is an
    attack on a community, and it will be met with real
    consequences of their violent actions.
        This epidemic is real. It's based on undeniable
    quantitative data, and is growing, and it demands immediate
    action, not after the next tragedy but right now.
        I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today,
    and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yoes follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Patrick Yoes
                                3 December 2025
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and the other
    Members of the distinguished Committee on Homeland Security. My name is
    Patrick Yoes and I am the national president of the Fraternal Order of
    Police (FOP). I thank you for the opportunity to talk about the
    alarming increase in deliberate and targeted attacks on law enforcement
    officers at every level of government.
        The Fraternal Order of Police is the oldest and largest law
    enforcement labor organization in the United States, representing more
    than 382,000 members in over 2,200 local lodges in every region of the
    country. We represent rank-and-file law enforcement officers who serve
    in departments of all sizes--from small rural agencies to large urban
    departments.
        We thank the committee for having this hearing to discuss the issue
    of violence and threats of violence targeting law enforcement officers.
    Since the latter half of 2015, the national FOP has been collecting
    data on officers who are shot in the line of duty. We undertook this
    effort because there seemed to be a measurable increase in the number
    of officers who were injured by a firearm. Officers who are shot and
    killed in the line of duty are tracked by many different
    organizations--the National FOP, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
    (PSOB) program, the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund
    (NLEOMF), and the Officers Down Memorial Page (ODMP) as well as various
    other groups at the State and local levels. But, apart from the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
    Assaulted (LEOKA) program, no one was collecting data on officers who
    were shot but survived. The FOP stepped up and began collecting this
    data in an effort geared to identify ambush attacks on officers because
    we view these attacks as the most dangerous to our officers.
        The National FOP took the definition of ``ambush'' or ``ambush-
    style'' attacks from an October 2015 report from the Office of
    Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) within the U.S.
    Department of Justice entitled Ambushes of Police. Ambush attacks are
    sudden and surprising to the victim. There is no provocation and
    excessive force is used in most ambush attacks. To the extent that we
    were able, we worked to identify ambush attacks but soon learned that
    data on officers who survived being shot, regardless of the
    circumstances, was valuable.
        In 2018, the COPS Office, under the auspices of the National Blue
    Alert Program, also began tracking this data. In 2019, the National FOP
    was awarded a COPS grant from which allowed us to enhance our ability
    to collect this data, expand the number of data points we collect, and
    provide better analysis--particularly with respect to the nature of the
    shooting incidents. We provide monthly reports to the COPS Office, the
    public, policy makers here in Washington, and media outlets. The COPS
    Office has been publishing an annual report every spring since 2020
    using data collected by the National FOP.
        A record number of officers--378--were shot in the line of duty in
    2023, 50 of whom were killed. There were 115 ambush-style attacks on
    law enforcement in which 138 officers were shot and 20 of whom were
    killed. Of the officers killed by gunfire in 2023, 44 percent were
    ambushed.
        Last year was the very first time in the decade that we have been
    tracking this data that the number of officers shot in the line of duty
    declined. In 2024, 342 officers were shot in the line of duty, 50 of
    whom were killed. There were 62 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement
    in which 79 officers were shot, 18 of whom were killed.
        As of this Monday, 314 officers have been shot in the line of duty,
    43 of whom were killed. There have been 62 ambush-style attacks on law
    enforcement officers in which 83 officers were shot, 21 of whom were
    killed.
        This violence spans the Nation, with Texas reporting the most
    incidents (39 officers shot as of 30 November), followed by Georgia
    (23), Florida (19), Pennsylvania (18), and Ohio (17).
        When people look at this data, they often just see numbers. But we
    must remember that these are real people we are talking about--fathers,
    mothers, sons, and daughters.
        They are heroes who suit up and show up every day to serve and
    protect the communities they love.
        These grim numbers would be even worse, were it not for significant
    advancements in medical trauma science and anti-ballistic technology.
    Officers who are shot in the line of duty have a better chance of
    surviving the incident.
        Every felonious attack on a law enforcement officer, especially by
    gunfire, is disturbing regardless of the circumstances. Officers are in
    the line of fire and must always be vigilant and maintain the highest
    level of situational awareness. In most response scenarios, officers
    can quickly assess situations, recognize threats, and take adequate
    defensive actions. Tragically, not every threat can be seen or
    mitigated.
        In May 2017, the FBI released a report entitled The Assailant
    Study: Mindset and Behavior. The report identified a disturbing trend
    of attackers who are motivated by a desire and willingness to kill law
    enforcement officers. This motivation, the report concludes, is from a
    ``singular narrative that portrays the officer as guilty in traditional
    and social media and the subject as the victim.'' Fourteen of the 50
    assailants--28 percent--that participated in this study expressed a
    desire to kill law enforcement officers. This is a frightening
    statement.
        The erosion of respect for law enforcement coupled with public
    figures spewing anti-police rhetoric--rhetoric that is amplified by
    social media platforms--has fueled greater aggression toward police
    officers than what has been seen in previous years--undoubtedly
    emboldening people to turn verbal assaults into brazen acts of violence
    against law enforcement. This aligns with the concept of ``stochastic
    terrorism,'' where inflammatory rhetoric creates a climate that
    emboldens individuals to commit independent acts of violence without
    explicit direction.
        One such example is the Maryland man who shot and seriously injured
    his girlfriend before deciding to drive to New York City to kill police
    officers in retribution for the death of Eric Garner, posting on social
    media: ``I'm putting Wings on Pigs Today . . .  They Take 1 of
    Ours . . . Lets Take 2 of Theirs.'' Upon arrival, he approached the
    passenger window of a New York City Police Department (NYPD) patrol car
    and opened fire. Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were struck in the
    head and upper body and died at the scene.
        Anti-police rhetoric led to the mass murders of law enforcement
    officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge in 2016, along with too many other
    instances in which an individual was motivated solely by a desire to
    injure or kill a cop. Surges in anti-police sentiment following high-
    profile events like officer-involved shootings have been linked to
    increased assaults on officers. The National FOP believes that
    dehumanizing language erodes respect for the badge and emboldens those
    predisposed to harm officers by ambush when attacks are unexpected. For
    example, a December 2017 study by the COPS Office, which examined law
    enforcement officer fatalities from 2010-2016, found that 20 percent of
    ambushed officers were seated in their patrol cars and 56 percent of
    officers killed in an ambush were not on a call or engaged in any
    enforcement activity. Many of these officers were simply eating,
    standing post, or were targeted and killed while at their homes or on
    their way home. All targeted, one could conclude, by someone whose sole
    motivation was to kill a cop.
        In 2018, the Criminal Justice Information Services Division within
    the FBI released a report entitled Ambushes and Unprovoked Attacks:
    Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers. This comprehensive
    report concluded: ``while the overall number of officers who were
    feloniously killed was declining, the percentage of officers
    feloniously killed during surprise attacks was increasing.''
        Now that we have established that attacks on officers have been
    increasing and that a significant number of assailants are motivated by
    a desire to hurt or kill an officer, we must ask: how did we get here?
    How did we reach a point in our communities where law enforcement
    officers went from being universally respected as ``Officer
    Friendly''--a figure parents would urge their children to seek out if
    they were ever in trouble--to being the subject of such distrust and
    disdain? And why is there no sense of urgency to address this issue in
    the U.S. House of Representatives?
        We have clearly documented a terrifying increase in violence
    targeted at police. Yet Congress is taking no action to address this
    epidemic when it could be considering H.R. 1551, the ``Protect and
    Serve Act''--yet the House Judiciary Committee refuses to bring the
    bill to mark-up because Members of the Freedom Caucus serving on that
    committee oppose the bill. This bill would make it a Federal offense to
    target a law enforcement officer with violence in certain, limited
    circumstances. It would not make every attack against an officer a
    Federal crime, but it would give the U.S. Department of Justice a tool
    to fight back against targeted attacks on police like those in New York
    City, Dallas, and Baton Rouge. The bill was drafted as a direct
    response to the increased number of law enforcement officers who have
    been targeted.
        The administration has been extremely supportive of law
    enforcement. President Trump has issued two Executive Orders--one
    directing the Justice Department to seek enhanced sentences for crimes
    against law enforcement officers, another ending the Biden moratorium
    on the use of the Federal death penalty.
        Vice President Vance was the keynote speaker at our National Peace
    Officers Memorial Service this year. In his remarks, the Vice President
    recognized the importance of the event and called for a return to law
    and order in our communities. He addressed these ambush attacks on
    officers and stated that the administration would direct Federal
    resources to law enforcement officers to improve training and pay. He
    additionally stated that the administration would create new legal
    protections for officers and seek the death penalty for those convicted
    of harming law enforcement officers.
        Yet there is no sense of urgency in Congress and no recognition of
    the actual physical and too-often lethal violence that has targeted our
    Nation's law enforcement. Today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, is the first
    time that the House has examined this issue since 2018 when the
    ``Protect and Serve Act'' passed on an overwhelming 382-35 vote. Prior
    to the floor vote, the bill favorably reported by committee on a
    unanimous vote.
        I know the bill is not within this committee's jurisdiction, and I
    do give credit to Chairman Jordan for his repeated attempts to schedule
    a mark-up on the bill. Unfortunately, he and the National FOP have not
    been able to overcome the bill's Republican opponents. But I welcome
    this opportunity to speak directly to Members of this distinguished
    committee about the critical importance of this bill.
        We have clearly documented a terrifying increase in violence
    targeted at police. Yet Congress is taking no action to address this
    epidemic. Following the turmoil of the 2020 election and credible
    threats of violence against poll workers and election officials, the
    U.S. Justice Department has launched a full task force to address these
    threats. This is frustrating to our members because we know--we know--
    that law enforcement officers are already under threat and are being
    shot and killed because of the job we do--just like the election
    workers. There was a seems to be a greater sense of urgency to address
    potential violence against election workers than actual violence
    against law enforcement officers. In the previous Congress,
    Representative Gottheimer, the lead Democrat on the ``Protect and Serve
    Act,'' introduced the ``Election Worker and Polling Place Protection
    Act,'' which is very similar to the ``Protect and Serve Act,'' and
    creates a new Federal offense in the criminal code. As far as I know,
    no election workers were targeted or killed in any recent election.
        Similarly, Representative Swalwell, who is not a cosponsor of the
    ``Protect and Serve Act,'' has introduced H.R. 3203, the ``Journalist
    Protection Act,'' which creates a new Federal offense and allows
    Federal charges to be brought against anyone who inflicts bodily harm
    on a journalist.
        Why does Congress believe that election officials and journalists
    suddenly need additional support and protection? Because of a sharp
    increase in vile and violent rhetoric aimed at them for simply doing
    their job. And, because we know--we have actual data--that demonstrates
    an escalation of rhetoric against occupants of a particular profession
    ultimately leads to violence. In June 2018, we witnessed the killing of
    5 journalists in Annapolis, Maryland, by a gunman who escalated verbal
    harassment into mass murder. I recognize this is a horrific tragedy,
    but it is difficult to compare the slaughter of 5 journalists in one
    mass murder with the fact that 656 officers were shot in just the last
    2 years and 11 months.
        Violent and hateful rhetoric, if left unchallenged, leads to
    physical violence. We have seen it happen on a wide-spread basis in the
    profession of law enforcement. It has increased greatly this year and
    is directed to Federal law enforcement in Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol in part because of the
    administration's efforts to enforce the Nation's immigration laws. We
    didn't write those laws, but we are sworn to uphold them and enforce
    them. The public has directed their anger and hostility toward these
    Federal agents--who, again, are just doing their jobs--as well as the
    State and local officers assisting them or just serving their
    communities. All of that anger, amplified by social media, has led to
    an enormous spike in attacks against ICE agents. These officers are in
    physical jeopardy not just from the criminals they pursue, but from
    those motivated and triggered by anti-law enforcement sentiments.
        When a member of the public calls for help, we answer that call.
    Now is the time for our elected officials at every level of government
    to answer our call and support law enforcement by addressing the surge
    of targeted violence against police officers.
        We must challenge the hateful rhetoric that leads to this
    violence--whether it is against a cop, a reporter, or a poll worker--
    and let our communities know that it is not acceptable. It is incumbent
    upon you, our elected officials, as well as our community leaders, to
    stand up and support our men and women, and speak out against the
    violence aimed at them. We will continue our efforts to get H.R. 1551
    through the Committee on the Judiciary, and I thank you all again for
    this opportunity to speak for the 382,000 officers in every region of
    our great Nation and the importance of this legislation to them.
        I would be pleased to answer any further questions for the record.
                                     ______

                           The Protect and Serve Act
                               facts and analysis
        The legislation would create a new Federal offense for those who
    deliberately target law enforcement officers with violence and is a
    direct response to the increased number of law enforcement officers who
    have been targeted for attack.
                                   the facts
       In October 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice released a
            report entitled: Ambushes of Police. The report detailed the
            number of ambush attacks on law enforcement officers from 1990-
            2013. In 2013 alone, there were between 200 and 300 ambush
            attacks reported. The Executive Summary of the report states:

         . . . the proportion of fatal attacks on officers attributable to
            ambushes [is] increasing. Concerns about targeted violence
            against police are on the rise, while officers must not only be
            guardians of the public but also be prepared to respond to
            violence targeting them.

       In May 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
            released a report entitled: The Assailant Study: Mindset and
            Behavior. The report identified a disturbing and growing trend
            of attackers who are motivated by a desire to kill a law
            enforcement officer. This motivation, the report concludes, is
            from a ``singular narrative that portrays the officer as guilty
            in traditional and social media and the subject as the
            victim.''
       A December 2017 study by the Office of Community Oriented
            Policing Services entitled Making It Safer examined law
            enforcement officer fatalities from 2010-2016, including ambush
            attacks. The study found that 20 percent of ambushed officers
            were seated in their patrol cars and that:

        56 percent were not on a call or engaged in any enforcement
            activity. Many of these officers were simply eating, sitting on
            post, or in five cases, targeted and killed while at their home
            or on their way home.

       In 2018, the Criminal Justice Information Services Division
            within the FBI released a report entitled Ambushes and
            Unprovoked Attacks: Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement
            Officers. This comprehensive report concluded: ``While the
            overall number of officers who were feloniously killed was
            declining, the percentage of officers feloniously killed during
            surprise attacks was increasing.''
       In 2022, 331 officers were shot in the line of duty, 62 of
            whom were killed. There were 89 ambush-style attacks on law
            enforcement officers in which 126 officers were shot and 32 of
            whom were killed.
       In 2023, a record number of officers--378--were shot in the
            line of duty, 46 of whom were killed. There were 115 ambush-
            style attacks on law enforcement in which 138 officers were
            shot and 20 of whom were killed. Of the officers killed by
            gunfire in 2023, 44 percent were ambushed.
       In 2024, 342 officers were shot in the line of duty, 50 of
            whom were killed. There were 61 ambush-style attacks on law
            enforcement in which 79 officers were shot, 18 of whom were
            killed.
       As of 30 November 2025, 314 officers have been shot in the
            line of duty, 43 of whom were killed. There have been 62
            ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers in which 83
            officers were shot, 21 of whom were killed.
                          analysis: section by section
        Section 1. Short Title.
        The short title of the bill is the ``Protect and Serve Act.''
        Section 2. Crimes targeting law enforcement officers.
        This section creates a new Federal offense for anyone who
    ``willingly'' assaults a law enforcement officer and would sentence
    such an offender to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or for life for
    murder or attempted murder. In order for these charges to be filed, the
    U.S. Attorney General must certify that:
       the State has asked the Federal Government to assume
            jurisdiction;
       Federal prosecution is ``in the public interest and
            necessary to secure substantial justice.'' In order to make
            this certification, the U.S. Attorney General must consider:
         the verdict or sentence at the State level;
         the extent of planning and premeditation;
         the intended outcome;
         a disregard for human life; and
         the benefit to public safety from Federal prosecution.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you, Mr. Yoes.
        I now recognize Mr. Hodges for 5 minutes to summarize his
    opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF DANIEL HODGES, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, D.C.
                     METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

        Mr. Hodges. Good morning.
        I was invited today to speak in my personal capacity, I
    suspect, because Ranking Member Thompson is familiar with my
    history, as I've been on the receiving ends of threats and
    violence due to the work I've done in the name of the law. I
    experienced intense violence during the insurrection of January
    6, and because I have the temerity to describe it publicly,
    threats against my life: bomb threats at events I attend,
    people trying to find out where I live, whether I have a wife
    or children they can use against me.
        I have a feeling I will be asked about how the lionization
    of the insurrectionists solely enhanced their zealotry, about
    how the mass pardoning of every criminal who assaulted my
    colleagues and I encourages further lawlessness and violence,
    about how in the intervening years many pardoned
    insurrectionists have been rearrested for crime, such as
    reckless homicide, child sexual assault, threats to blow up
    government buildings, and a kill list of FBI agents.
        These are all salient points, and I'm happy to address
    them.
        However, the tenor of the press release announced this
    hearing made it sound like certain participants were going to
    spend a few hours scratching their heads and pretending not to
    understand why threats against law enforcement have risen so
    sharply this year, and I cannot abide such a farce.
        Law enforcement is predicated on the notion that we are a
    Nation of laws, that anyone who is detained by law enforcement
    officials will be afforded all of the rights and protections
    that are guaranteed to them by the Constitution. It is this
    exemplary standard of civil society that compels individuals to
    cooperate when faced with arrest. Flawed as it is, our justice
    system aspires to and works toward the goal of truth and equal
    protection under the law.
        Unfortunately this year, broad swaths of Federal law
    enforcement have proven this is no longer the case.
        Perjury and contempt of court used to be prohibitive of
    work in law enforcement, but now it appears to be a
    prerequisite of leadership. Kash Patel, the director of the
    FBI, had already been found not credible as a witness in the
    court of law prior to his appointment. Greg Bovino, the so-
    called commander at large of Border Control, was found to have
    lied while under oath in order to justify his use of force
    against Americans.
        Even the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem,
    intentionally defied a judge's order to halt the trafficking of
    prisoners to foreign countries and then bragged about it on
    national television.
        I should add here that one of the hallmarks of secret
    police forces throughout history is operating outside the law,
    using violence and intimidation to achieve their objectives.
        Every day I wake up, and I am confronted with more heinous
    acts by some Federal law enforcement: pointing their lethal
    weapons at protestors and journalists, needlessly assaulting
    citizens on their own property, threatening to shoot and arrest
    EMTs for doing their job, holding children hostage to coerce
    their parents out of their house. One shot a woman who
    committed no crime several times and bragged about it saying he
    fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes.
        Many of these absolute embarrassments to the badge keep
    their face obscured to try and evade any possibility of
    accountability, and their leadership condones it.
        If the inhabitants of our country can no longer believe in
    the rule of law, then they can no longer believe in law
    enforcement. If they believe they will be denied their basic
    rights, what motivation do they have to cooperate with
    investigations, to support law enforcement as an institution?
        The fact of the matter is that right now, in the United
    States of America, there is a semisecret police force abducting
    people based on the color of their skin and sending many of
    them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial
    concentration camps.
        There are still plenty of good officers--I work with them--
    Federal and local. But before we go around the room clutching
    our pearls, wondering how people could possibly compare law
    enforcement in this country to the Gestapo, maybe we should
    take a moment and ask ourselves if there isn't some recent
    behavior on the Government's part that could encourage such a
    juxtaposition. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hodges follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Daniel Hodges
                                December 3, 2025
        Good morning, I was invited today to speak in my personal capacity,
    I suspect, because Ranking Member Thompson is familiar with my history,
    as I've been on the receiving end of threats and violence due to the
    work I've done in the name of the law. I experienced intense violence
    during the insurrection of January 6 and, because I had the temerity to
    describe it publicly, threats against my life, bomb threats at events I
    attend, people trying to find out where I live, and whether I have a
    wife or children they can use against me.
        I have a feeling I will be asked about how the lionization of the
    insurrectionists only enhanced their zealotry, about how the mass
    pardoning of every criminal who assaulted my colleagues and I
    encourages further lawlessness and violence, about how in the
    intervening years many pardoned insurrectionists have been rearrested
    for crimes such as reckless homicide, child sexual assault, threats to
    blow up Government buildings and a kill list of FBI agents.
        These are all salient points and I'm happy to address them.
    However, the tenor of the press release announcing this hearing made it
    sound like certain participants were going to spend a few hours
    scratching their heads and pretending to not understand why threats
    against law enforcement have risen so sharply this year and I cannot
    abide such a farce.
        Law enforcement is predicated on the notion that we are a nation of
    laws, that anyone who is detained by law enforcement officials will be
    afforded all the rights and protections that are guaranteed to them by
    the Constitution. It is this exemplary standard of civil society that
    compels individuals to cooperate when faced with arrest. Flawed as it
    is, our justice system aspires to and works toward the goal of truth
    and equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, this year, broad
    swaths of Federal law enforcement have proven that this is no longer
    the case.
        Perjury and contempt of court used to be prohibitive of work in law
    enforcement but now it appears to be a prerequisite of leadership. Kash
    Patel, the director of the FBI, had already been found not credible as
    a witness in the court of law prior to his appointment and Greg Bovino,
    the so-called ``Commander at Large'' of Border Patrol, was found to
    have lied while under oath in order to justify his use of force against
    Americans. Even the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem,
    intentionally defied a judge's order to halt the trafficking of
    prisoners to foreign countries and then bragged about it on national
    television.
        I should add here that one of the hallmarks of secret police forces
    throughout history is operating outside the law, using violence and
    intimidation to achieve their objectives.
        Every day I wake up and I'm confronted with more heinous acts by
    some Federal law enforcement: pointing their lethal weapons at
    protesters and journalists, needlessly assaulting citizens on their own
    property, threatening to shoot and arrest EMTs for doing their job,
    holding children hostage to try to coerce their parents out of their
    house. One shot a woman (who committed no crime) several times and
    bragged about it, saying he ``fired five rounds and she had seven
    holes.'' Many of these absolute embarrassments to the badge keep their
    face obscured so to evade any possibility of accountability and their
    leadership condones it.
        If the inhabitants of our country can no longer believe in the rule
    of law, then they can no longer believe in law enforcement. If they
    believe they will be denied their basic rights, what motivation do they
    have to cooperate with investigations, to support law enforcement as an
    institution?
        The fact of the matter is that right now, in the United States of
    America, there is a secret police force abducting people based on the
    color of their skin and sending many of them via state-sponsored human
    trafficking to extraterritorial concentration camps.
        So before we go around the room clutching our pearls, wondering how
    people could possibly compare law enforcement in this country to the
    Gestapo, maybe we should take a moment and ask ourselves if there isn't
    some recent behavior on the Government's part that could encourage such
    a juxtaposition.
        Thank you.

        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you very much.
        Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their
    5 minutes of questions. An additional round of questioning may
    be called after all Members have been recognized.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for opening questions.
        Mr. Yoes, recent heinous acts have brought increased
    attention to the rise in threats against law enforcement. I'm
    well aware that this is--this is a danger agents and officers
    have faced for a long time. In your testimony, you mentioned
    how your organization has looked at recent attacks as a
    persistent, growing issue over the last two decades. Can you
    elaborate on the historical patterns of attacks against law
    enforcement your organization has been monitoring?
        Mr. Yoes. Yes, sir.
        We started collecting this data because we recognize the
    trend in this country. Surprisingly, while we track a lot of
    data in this country, we were not tracking the amount of law
    enforcement officers or violence toward law enforcement
    officers. All we knew were certain aspects of that. So we
    started tracking this data because we knew it was going to show
    us a pattern. I want to be clear. You know, I know there's a
    lot of political charged discussion here, and I expected that.
    But I'm going to ask you to just recognize--I'm telling you,
    2,553 officers have been shot in the last 7 years. That spans 2
    administrations. So if we want to try and focus on the fact
    that politics is doing this, I think we're missing the point,
    and we are doing a disservice to the people who suit up and
    show up every single day in communities across this country and
    do a job.
        What we're seeing is a number of factors, and that is, is
    the dehumanization of law enforcement officers. This goes over,
    like I said, 7 years. As a matter of fact, I would argue that
    if you look at the past 4 years, the numbers were actually
    higher than a, you know, a high spike. Not that they were low
    numbers to start with.
        So the challenges are much greater, much greater. It has to
    do with unchecked comments made to dehumanize law enforcement
    officers that are causing people to act on what they feel is a
    community built around their own belief system.
        Chairman Garbarino. I can't agree with you more. I think
    these political--attacks amongst political opponents are
    putting actual targets on the law enforcement men and women's
    backs instead of their opponents. I think people need to--we
    need to recognize that's been happening for the last, as you
    said, 7 years.
        Mr. Yoes. I will tell you that my members are both Democrat
    and Republican, and we're all having the same problem.
        Chairman Garbarino. As these targeted threats against
    officers and their families continue to escalate, what measures
    do you believe law enforcement agencies should prioritize to
    keep personnel safe on and off duty?
        Mr. Yoes. Well, so that's a pretty big question. It could
    take a while to answer. I'll start off in a context of what we
    have here.
        I think first thing we need to do is we need to turn down
    the rhetoric. We all need to recognize that we all play a part
    in this. This is on both sides. We need to recognize there is a
    real crisis here. It really is upsetting that this is the first
    hearing we're having on this in quite some time, but this--this
    is--they have quantitative data that shows a real problem.
        I'll make a--I'll make a comparison. Congress's
    responsibilities is a lot of things. One of them is to make
    sure that Americans working in their jobs have--can do so under
    safe environments. I'll give you an example. If there were a
    cave-in at a mine, a coal mine, we would have hearings on the
    safety of that coal mine, and so you should. What about the
    2,533 officers that are shot over 7 years? What more
    quantitative data do we have--do we need?
        So the first thing we need to do is we all need to turn
    down the rhetoric. We need to focus that there is, in fact, a
    real problem and stop trying to paint it as one person's
    problem as opposed to the other because it is all of our
    responsibilities to find a solution to turn down the rhetoric.
    Turn down the rhetoric. Stop dehumanizing law enforcement, and
    recognize that words have consequences. For people who believe,
    they act on those. That would be No. 1.
        The second would be pass the Protect and Serve Act. Give
    the Federal Government the opportunity, the Department of
    Justice to step in under certain circumstances in order to be
    able to protect the interests of law enforcement officers and
    their communities with the increase in violence we're seeing.
        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you.
        Mr. Hughes, ICE enforcement officers and other Federal law
    enforcement partners are working to ensure our Nation's laws
    are being followed. Unfortunately, rising anti-police sentiment
    has compromised officer and agent safety. Can you talk about
    the impact on Federal law enforcement when such strong
    opposition is encouraged and directed toward officers who are
    simply enforcing the law?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just want to say thank
    you for all your efforts in enhancing the protection of law
    enforcement officers--State, local, Federal. Particularly
    grateful for all your work and leadership in 9/11 health issues
    and aiding the responders through the World Trade Center Health
    Program, which I was there as well. So appreciate all the
    efforts from you and all of the Members of the committee.
        Law enforcement--the anti-law enforcement sentiment that is
    being displayed is very real. It's very impactful. It's
    impactful on recruitment, retention. It's impactful upon how
    people do--law enforcement officers do their work. It's a
    matter of we need to be working together.
        I will--everyone up here, all the witnesses, have made the
    comment about both sides working together. I think this is a
    common issue that we can all be working together on and
    decreasing the rhetoric on what is happening and protect our
    officers. Look at ways to protect the officers. It is--it is
    wide-spread. We need to make sure we are working together and
    looking at ways that we can enhance through enhancing laws or
    coming up with new bills, which is being done. But again,
    coming together and working together to have this done.
        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you very much.
        We're going to do our best because I think there's going to
    be a lot of participation today, and I know we ran over a
    little on the 5 minutes there, but we're going to do our best
    to stick to 5 minutes so everybody has time to speak today.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't think any of us here denigrate any law enforcement
    officer. You put your life on the line every day. But in every
    occupation, there are standards that you have to adhere to. You
    follow them, fine. If you don't, there's--the system addresses
    whatever that fault is.
        But I think part of what a lot of us are concerned about
    is--for instance, Officer Hodges, you recently wrote about the
    dangers of sending Federal law enforcement into American
    communities wearing masks to hide their identity, wearing no
    insignia, badges, or name tags, and driving unmarked cars.
        You pointed out that the public and other law enforcement
    officers have no way of knowing that these mystery agents are
    legally sworn law enforcement officers. Can you please
    elaborate on why this practice is so dangerous to the public as
    well as to Federal law enforcement officers?
        Mr. Hodges. Certainly. I think it's obvious that if masked,
    armed individuals hop out of a nondescript vehicle and attempt
    to force someone against their will into the vehicle, that
    looks to anyone like a kidnapping. Law enforcement who sees
    that, I would treat it as a kidnapping until they were able to
    prove that they had the lawful authority to conduct that
    detention. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that
    could get very bad very quickly.
        Aside from that, it just erodes--more than erodes. It
    destroys trust between the community and law enforcement, which
    is paramount. We need the community on our side in order to
    successfully conduct our mission, in order to make headway in
    so many investigations because we're not everywhere. We rely on
    the community to help us, and they rely on us to protect them.
        So these terrible, terrible practices of incognito officers
    just doing whatever they feel like when the President went on
    the television and said police officers can do whatever they
    want now, it's that kind of--that kind of rhetoric that really
    just destroys what the institution of law enforcement is
    supposed to stand for. So yes. We need to do something
    different about this.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you.
        A lot of us were in the Capitol on January 6, and we saw
    first-hand what happened. Most of us did not fathom the United
    States Capitol being overrun by anybody. On that day, over 140
    Federal law enforcement officers were hurt. Unfortunately,
    several succumbed to some of their injuries later.
        Tell me your opinion that people who either pled guilty on
    assaulting law enforcement officers, or were found guilty, how
    do you as a sworn law enforcement officer feel when those
    individuals get pardoned?
        Mr. Hodges. Pardoning people who attempted to stop the
    transfer of power, assaulted my colleagues and I, it just
    emboldens them to feel that they can do it again, to feel that
    they can attack the police again, to feel that they can act as
    the President's personal militia. That's not just conjecture.
    That's something that actually--one of them tried to do. One of
    them was trying to restart the Oath Keepers and said that we--
    ``We can serve as the President's militia.''
        So there were no lessons learned from so many of them.
    There was--they're ready to conduct violence again, political
    violence, violence against police. I just don't want to see
    that happen ever again.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman yields back.
        I now represent the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our witnesses, thank
    you for being here today. Thank you for your service to your
    communities.
        Before I begin, I would like to issue my condolences to the
    family of Sarah Beckstrom, who passed away just over a week ago
    as she was patrolling the grounds outside the White House in
    what can be described as nothing more than a premeditated
    attack from the gunman in that case. Also, I want the family of
    Andrew Wolfe to know that our prayers are with him as he tries
    to recover from the gunshot wound that he suffered.
        I think that highlights the reason that we're here today,
    the attack that we saw after this hearing had been announced
    but before these witnesses were convened today, of the
    animosity that we see toward law enforcement.
        Look. We can point to other incidents. It's not just the
    attack that we saw in Washington, DC. Just looking back over
    the 6 months, we saw on July 4 the attack at the Prairieland
    ICE Detention Facility in which we had an officer who was
    killed--excuse me--an officer who was struck in the neck, and
    we had 9 individuals who have been indicted for their attack on
    that facility. We know that less than a week later, there was
    an attack on a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas.
    We know that on September 24, there was an attack at a Dallas
    facility, an ICE detention center, in which we had 3 detainees
    who were shot, 2 of which died.
        So we have a track record. We have a history of looking and
    looking and seeing that what we are talking about is extremely
    important. We have individual acts that can back up the reason
    for this hearing.
        Now, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Yoes, each of you,
    in your opening statement, in your written statement, you talk
    about the rhetoric that is being used. I will summarize very
    quickly--just take out bits and pieces of your testimony.
        Mr. Hughes, you say that the rise in targeted violence and
    the corrosive rhetoric directed at public servants have created
    an atmosphere that jeopardize officer safety and erode public
    trust.
        Mr. Thompson, you say violence against law enforcement is
    rising sharply and record-high assaults and officer shooting.
    This trend is fueled by growing anti-law enforcement rhetoric.
        Mr. Yoes, you say the same thing. You talk about violent
    and hateful rhetoric, if left unchallenged, leads to physical
    violence, and that we have seen it happen on a wide-spread
    basis in the profession of law enforcement.
        So, I want to--for just a second, I want to talk about some
    of those statements. We can talk about those in abstract, but I
    want to talk about those and some of the statements that I
    found in doing a very brief research on this topic.
        Governor Pritzker claimed the country is becoming Nazi
    Germany, because ICE is grabbing people off the street and
    disappearing them.
        Representative Crockett compared ICE to slave patrols.
        Representative Garcia referred to ICE as thugs.
        Representative Ramirez attacked ICE as a terror force and
    later referred to ICE as a terrorist organization.
        Representative Jayapal called ICE agents deranged and said
    is inspiring to obstruct immigration enforcement.
        Governor Walz smeared ICE agents as modern-day Gestapo.
        Chicago Mayor Johnson accused secret police of terrorizing
    our community.
        Representative Lynch referred to ICE agents as the Gestapo
    and nondescript thugs.
        Representative Frost compared ICE operations to some of the
    worst horrors and crimes against humanity in history.
        So to you, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Yoes, are
    these the statements that you were referring to, and do these
    statements, in fact, place law enforcement officers' lives in
    jeopardy? Do they--do you believe that they place lives in
    jeopardy? Mr. Hughes. Just yes or no. My time is short.
        Mr. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, all statements that are anti-
    rhetoric against police officers place officers in safety.
        Mr. Guest. Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. They are.
        Mr. Guest. Mr. Yoes.
        Mr. Yoes. Absolutely. These and more. I will say too, you
    don't get to throw fuel on a fire and curse the very flames
    that you create.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you.
        Mr. Hodges, I also read your statement. There is a
    statement that you made, the next to last paragraph of your
    statement. It says, ``The fact of the matter is that right now,
    in the United States of America, there is a secret police force
    abducting people on the color of their skin and sending many of
    them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial
    concentration camps.''
        Mr. Hodges, I will tell you that that is a statement that I
    find extremely troubling, and that I could not disagree with
    more.
        With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm out of time, and I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman yields back.
        Now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the job.
        Gentlemen, you have a tough job. My brother just retired
    from LAPD after 30 years of serving that community.
        Mr. Hodges, you were there January 6. So was I. To this
    day, I will not forget what happened that day. I can't imagine
    what you think about it on a given day, watching you on that
    video. Knowing what we went through, stuck in that gallery--but
    you had the physical assault on you.
        To the families of Sarah Beckstrom and Sergeant Wolfe, my
    prayers are with you, with your families. Difficult times. We
    pray for you.
        Gentlemen, you don't have a tough job. We have a tough job
    to bring back trust in public safety. It's not us versus them.
    You defend our community, the thin blue line that is there to
    protect us. Earlier we talked about situations I've had back
    home. Got to make it work again. Back home, we've spent
    decades, decades, trying to bring trust between our communities
    and public safety. Actually worked. Let me tell you what's
    going on right now.
        Videos on social media, people forced into unmarked cars,
    agents wearing plain clothes, masks, don't identify themselves.
    Some of those people that have been apprehended are U.S.
    citizens. I know. I've talked to them. What's the message
    that's being sent to our communities? To my community? To my
    children? Their uncle is a police officer. What do I tell my
    children?
        Just to tell you that I'm not being overdramatic, here's an
    FBI memo, recently issued by the FBI, urging ICE agents to
    identify themselves after a string of impersonators committing
    crimes. This memo cites 5 cases where criminals impersonating
    masked agents, kidnapping, robbing, sexual assaults.
        This is not the way you instill trust in our society. Back
    home in Santa Ana recently, masked ICE agent, plain clothes,
    pointed a gun at a woman that he claimed was following and
    recording him. Local Santa Ana PD officer responded to the
    call. You can imagine what almost happened. A tragic situation.
    Armed police officer, armed ICE agent. That close to a gun
    fight.
        I don't know how this situation is helping us instill trust
    between our communities and police officers.
        I don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to turn to
    resources. We all talk about making sure you have the resources
    to protect the communities and make sure you're safe. I have a
    memo here from my sheriff, Don Barnes, who's been here as a
    witness, Republican side. One of the biggest issues he talks
    about? Resources. Fiscal year 2026 budget; resources that
    you've asked for; $1 billion in cuts to 40 Department of
    Justice grant programs; $545 billion in cuts to the FBI; $500
    billion cuts to cybersecurity and infrastructure; another $200
    million DEA cuts; billions of dollars of FEMA funding froze for
    counterterrorism grants to State locals.
        Sheriff Barnes tells me the changing environment--the
    changing threat environment to public safety, and I say to our
    constituents, demands that we have the resources and we
    coordinate.
        Here, we're talking us versus them. But when we start
    cutting resources back from the local public safety officers,
    trying to coordinate with the Feds, this--I can't imagine how
    this is good public policy when it comes to protecting our
    public.
        Mr. Thompson, my last 7 seconds. Go ahead.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Correa, thank you. I echo those concerns
    about resources. We're facing a crisis of recruitment and
    retention. You can ask any of the gentlemen on my left and my
    right. It's in every agency across this country.
        But let's look at what's driving that. It's the rhetoric,
    no two ways about it. Our research--we just did a national
    survey on this. The research is clear. We all have to stop
    using that type of language.
        I was asked to come today----
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Thompson----
        Chairman Garbarino. I'm going to have to--to keep on time,
    I'm going to go to the next one, but hopefully you----
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Chairman, I just want to submit 2 articles
    for the record here--the one from the FBI saying ``no more
    masked agents'' to ICE and the other one from Orange County
    Sheriff Don Barnes.
        Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

       Letter From the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Office of the
                      Sheriff, Sheriff-Coroner Don Barnes
                                      December 2, 2025.
    The Honorable Lou Correa,
    U.S. House of Representatives, 2082 Rayburn House Office Building,
            Washington, DC 20515.

    RE: House Committee on Homeland Security hearing, ``When Badges Become
    Targets: How Anti-Law Enforcement Rhetoric Fuels Violence Against
    Officers.''

        Dear Representative Correa: This week the House Homeland Security
    Committee will hold a hearing on the topic of violence against law
    enforcement. The committee's focus on this topic is both timely and
    necessary. The attack against national guard members in our Nation's
    capital is a painful reminder of the threat those in uniform can face
    in their work to protect the community. Nation-wide there has been a
    recent dip in the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed
    in the line of duty, but the period of 2021 to 2024 was the deadliest
    in the past 2 decades with 258 officers killed. The total number is
    trending lower this year, with 51 deaths reported to date in 2025,
    compared with 59 during the same period in 2024. Despite this decline,
    violence against law enforcement persists.
        Ambush-style attacks and assaults on peace officers remain a
    significant concern. Thus far in 2025 there has been 62 ambush-style
    attacks on law enforcement officers resulting in 83 officers shot, 21
    of whom were killed. This is an increase from the 57 ambush-style
    attacks on law enforcement officers at this point in 2024. Those
    attacks resulted in 75 officers shot, 17 of whom were killed. According
    to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, in 2023 agencies
    reported 79,091 assaults on officers, which was the highest annual
    number in a decade. In 2024 that number increased to 85,730 assaults.
    Within the Orange County Sheriff's Department jurisdiction, assaults on
    peace officers rose from 125 incidents in 2019, increasing each year
    and reaching a peak of 203 in 2023. Although the number declined to 167
    in 2024, violence against our thin blue line remains a serious concern
    that demands continued attention and analysis.
        This week's hearing is focused on how anti-law enforcement rhetoric
    contributes to this violence. Rhetoric is indeed a factor and can
    propel those who have been radicalized to commit these heinous acts.
    Violence against law enforcement must also be placed in the context of
    the broader threat environment. This complex threat environment faced
    by law enforcement further enhances our risks. Challenges like
    terrorism (both foreign and domestic), cyber threats, drug trafficking,
    foreign malign influence, political violence and continued fallout from
    the border crisis all put the safety of our communities at risk. Having
    the tools, training, and infrastructure to meet these challenges is
    critical and will ultimately result in improved security for both
    officers and the communities we serve.
        Congress has a number of solutions that can be employed to rectify
    both through policy and resources allocation. Solutions include passage
    of the bipartisan 2025 Police Week Legislation, proper maintenance of
    our homeland security infrastructure, and tools to meet advancements in
    technology.
    Police Week Legislation
        I applaud the bipartisan legislation passed by the House during
    this year's Police Week. Of particular importance is H.R. 2240, the
    Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
    This bill directs the Department of Justice to strengthen how it
    reports and analyzes attacks on law enforcement, including the
    potential addition of escalatory aggression as a tracked category. It
    also requires an assessment of the availability and use of mental-
    health resources for officers. By modernizing the way we collect and
    evaluate information on violence against officers and by identifying
    gaps in wellness resources, this bill gives agencies the tools they
    need to respond more effectively and enhance both officer safety and
    well-being.
        It is essential that the Senate act swiftly on this legislation and
    send it to the President's desk for signature. This effort should be
    paired with continued Federal support for training, mental-health
    services, and comprehensive officer-wellness programs.
    Homeland Security Infrastructure
        The Department of Homeland Security's grant programs--including the
    Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), State Homeland Security Grant
    Program (SHSGP), and Operation Stonegarden--have been instrumental in
    providing the tools to meet these challenges. These grants have
    enhanced local Orange County resources and allowed us to partner with
    Federal agencies on critical initiatives like the seizure of fentanyl,
    interdiction of traffickers along the coast, fusion center intelligence
    sharing, and response to critical incidents. The lessons of September
    11, 2001 are clear: collaboration among local, State and Federal law
    enforcement is critical to addressing shared threats. This belief is
    why I have dedicated substantial local resources, supplemented with
    Federal homeland grant funds, to ensure we have the proper security
    infrastructure to address the multiple threats our region and the
    Nation face.
        For example, in fiscal year 2024 Orange County received $2.3
    million in UASI funding. Most of the funds are dedicated to our fusion
    center, the Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center (OCAIC).
    Specifically, the funds are used for intelligence analyst personnel,
    along with training, equipment, and software. Similarly, we utilize
    SHSGP to fund a deputy position assigned to OCIAC. The work done by
    OCIAC analysts help both local and Federal law enforcement in their
    work to address threats like terrorism, school violence, cyber attacks,
    and foreign malign influence. Annually OCIAC vets and analyzes over
    1,000 tips. OCIAC was particularly helpful in providing intelligence
    utilized by deputies in response to unlawful anti-Israel protests at
    the University of California, Irvine during the Spring of 2024.
        Operation Stonegarden funding has been particularly helpful as our
    county addresses impacts of the border crisis that occurred from 2021
    to 2024. In the last 4 years the Sheriff's harbor patrol conducted 341
    Operation Stonegarden missions and responded to 112 potential smuggling
    events. This work primarily focuses on the trafficking of drugs and
    people.
        If these funds are reduced or eliminated it would interrupt
    important work that is supporting current efforts to keep our country
    safe. The rapid speed in securing the Southern Border has made our
    Nation significantly safer and is a tremendous accomplishment. However,
    even with this success we still must continue programs that address
    both border threats and threats that now exist due to rapid influx of
    crossings that occurred over the last 4 years. Last Wednesday's attack
    in Washington, DC is a clear example of the threat that remains within
    our borders. Any reduction or new restrictions on funding would place
    an untenable burden on resource-constrained jurisdictions, potentially
    leaving them unable to sustain critical capabilities in intelligence,
    threat prevention, training, and emergency preparedness. It is
    important to note that every local dollar we have to allocate to fill a
    Federal gap, is a local dollar not spent on basic public safety
    functions like crime reduction efforts, custody operations, and
    emergency management services.
        Sustained support for DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis
    (I&A) is also critical. I&A's field-based presence in fusion centers
    has proven essential to timely intelligence sharing and coordination in
    response to threats ranging from domestic and foreign terrorism to
    cyber attacks and transnational organized crime. These partnerships
    directly enhance local capacity to detect and prevent violence.
    Reducing support for I&A or for fusion centers would weaken the
    operational readiness of front-line agencies.
    Meeting Technological Advancement
        Making certain that law enforcement can meet threats posed by use
    of new technologies is another important action Congress can take to
    reduce threats. Nowhere is action more needed than with regard to
    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. Drones have
    proven to be significantly beneficial for public safety and emergency
    response. Congressional support through legislation like your H.R.
    1058, the DRONE Act, can help.
        At the same time, misuse of drones presents a significant security
    concern for local communities and law enforcement. Unauthorized UAS
    have been used to disrupt mass gathering events, interfere with efforts
    to fight wildfires, violate protected privacy, deliver contraband to
    incarcerated individuals and other nefarious acts by various criminal
    organizations, including drug cartels and terrorists. I am also
    concerned about the potential for drones to be used in attacks against
    our front-line public-safety personnel, as demonstrated by the assault
    on the Mexican Attorney General's Office in October of this year.
    Current Federal law limits the use of counter-UAS technologies, such as
    signal jamming, tracking, and drone interdiction, to just 4 Federal
    agencies. This legal gap is dangerous and must be addressed. Lawmakers
    must establish a legal framework that provides broad-based, but
    carefully regulated authority for locals to deploy and operate counter-
    UAS systems. This framework must be supported by funding, training,
    oversight, and transparency.
        Thank you for your continued support of law enforcement. Action on
    these measures will meet our shared goal of strengthening officer
    safety and ensuring local agencies have the resources needed to protect
    our communities and the men and women who serve them.
                                                    Don Barnes,
                                                       Sheriff-Coroner.

        Mr. Correa. We'll talk later, sir.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and your
    staff. I think this is a really important topic.
        You know, when you're utilizing the stats that talk about
    the thousands of ambush-style attacks over the last many years
    targeting law enforcement, it's such a dangerous environment.
        It's our culture. When you--people are going to be offended
    when I say this, but hopefully they'll understand how far the
    pendulum is swinging. There was a time, not so long ago, where
    if you had a child that got paddled in high school because they
    were disruptive, had disruptive behavior, disrespectful to an
    authority, the father would say to that person when they got
    home, ``I'm giving you some more,'' in terms of a paddling. If
    the coach gave you a little, then you're going to get a
    paddling when you get home. They didn't take the child's
    defense, because they were teaching the young adult the respect
    of authority.
        We have a culture now that coddles young adults. It's why
    teachers are struggling, because you can't teach and educate
    when you're having to deal with behavior in the classroom.
        So we have to have a cultural reform on this, where parents
    go back to a place where some--you know, for trying to raise
    your children and operate in more grace. But the pendulum has
    swung way too far, and the respect of authority has been lost
    at the younger generations. It is paying dividends in what is
    being experienced in law enforcement. So we've got a cultural
    problem.
        You're talking about the on-line threats. I want to hear
    more, if anyone wants to talk about, how do we balance the on-
    line threats with those who would learn how to target a law
    enforcement officer, trying to intimidate--this is how we move
    to Third-World-country status. When you no longer have the rule
    of law, you will have poverty. That is where we're headed as a
    country. We are headed toward an impoverished state.
        I love the statement from a few years ago: ``Hard times
    produce strong men. Strong men produce good times. Good times
    produce weak men. And weak men produce hard times.'' Applied to
    women as well, right? Because when you go through a struggle,
    it builds character in you.
        We are about to go through a struggle in this country,
    because we're not producing good character traits from the
    young adults all the way up to the--the way it plays out 20, 30
    years from now.
        What do we do in balancing the First Amendment for those
    that are doxing, sending out personal information, not only for
    the law enforcement officers but are also doing this for their
    children, trying to intimidate and move us to Third-World-
    country status? Where is the balance? How do we get a hold of
    that?
        I'll just open that up to anybody who wants to talk about
    it. Where do we find Constitutionally-sound ways to address
    that? Because you're saying the stats and the data say the
    encouragement online is why these thousands of assault attempts
    to officers and vehicles is occurring.
        So I'll open it up to anybody.
        Mr. Thompson. I'll go very briefly.
        I think Madison is turning in his grave. I think there's an
    awful lot of twisting of the First Amendment and what free
    speech means. I think we all need to take a big, giant step
    backward and reevaluate how that applies.
        Specifically, the internet has so much value, but it's a
    dangerous place. You know, we have to recognize that perhaps
    these are media companies. I know that's probably sacrilege
    among some on the right, but--they have an obligation. A lot of
    it--a lot of it--is coming straight from social media, pure and
    simple.
        Mr. Yoes. I'll add--just an extension of that is, when you
    look at--we all--we all know the difference between right and
    wrong. We were raised on it. We know. We know the rule of law.
    We know what we're supposed to do. We know what's acceptable,
    what's not.
        I think the problem we see--and social media has played a
    big part of that--is it's given excuses of why you cannot
    follow the rule of law. We have blurred the lines of what's the
    difference between right and wrong, and we've validated the
    ability to be able to believe your belief system and feel that
    your actions are appropriate.
        So you're right, it's--in lies our challenge. There has to
    be some accountability somewhere along the way, because what
    we're doing is damaging. When we're not checking this, we're
    adding fuel to this fire. There's no question we're seeing the
    results of it.
        Mr. Brecheen. Mr. Hughes.
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman.
        I would also add, working in the international environment,
    you can see how other countries do this. When you go too far
    one way or the other, you see consequences, good or bad, of
    privacy and speech rights.
        But what we need to be doing is looking at the social media
    issues--I think that's a huge part of what's going on--and
    looking at what laws need to be passed, what the right balance
    is. That's what this body can and should be working on, as
    well, to help in that arena.
        Mr. Brecheen. Last question, Mr. Chairman, very quickly.
        If there is legislation that you're aware of that's
    floating around out there, please let some of us know that does
    the balance. Because I didn't see that in any of the testimony
    this morning.
        With that, I yield.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr.
    Magaziner, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We need to support law enforcement officers who put
    themselves in harm's way every day to serve their communities
    and to keep people safe, and any acts of violence against law
    enforcement cannot be tolerated.
        I want to tell you all the story of one police officer from
    suburban America who was a victim of violence and injustice.
    This is Officer Radule Bojovic, and he served his community of
    Hanover Park, Illinois, as a police officer.
        Like many police officers across the country, he is a legal
    immigrant. Yet, despite being a legal immigrant, Officer
    Bojovic was arrested and detained by ICE as part of the Trump
    administration's Operation Midway Blitz and locked up for 2
    weeks before being released.
        He was legally authorized to work in the United States. He
    had a work permit from DHS. He had passed FBI and Illinois
    State Police criminal background checks when he was hired by
    the department.
        Now, listen, we all know it is dangerous for police
    officers out on the street every day. Do you have any idea how
    dangerous it is to be a police officer in prison, especially an
    innocent officer who has done nothing wrong and committed no
    crime?
        But this is what you get under the Trump administration--
    chaos, cruelty, innocent people being locked up just to meet
    Stephen Miller's arbitrary quotas.
        This is not an isolated case. Under the Trump
    administration, ICE has locked up police officers in Arizona,
    in Maine, and countless other innocent, hardworking people who
    have committed no crimes.
        This is Sae Joon Park from Hawaii, an Army veteran who has
    lived in the country legally for 50 years. He was deployed to
    Panama in 1989 and shot in the back. He took a bullet for our
    country.
        But the Trump administration just deported him to a country
    he hasn't lived in since he was 7 just because, like many
    veterans, he previously had struggles with substance abuse that
    led to some minor drug arrests.
        He deserves to be honored for his service, not deported.
        Donna Hughes Brown, a grandmother from Missouri who has
    lived in the United States legally for 48 years, has been in
    prison since July. She is still there, imprisoned by the Trump
    administration. She faces deportation. The only crime she
    committed? Writing 2 bad checks, totaling less than $80, 10
    years ago. Her husband is a combat veteran.
        They deported a 4-year-old U.S.-citizen boy with late-stage
    cancer--a U.S. citizen, who has the right, like all U.S.
    citizens, to have due process. His mother did not consent to
    have him deported, but his rights were ignored by the Trump
    administration.
        Listen to me: None of these people were in the country
    illegally. None of them committed any serious crimes. By the
    administration's own data, 70 percent of the people they have
    detained have no criminal convictions.
        The Trump administration should be going after violent
    criminals--not veterans, not kids with cancer, and not police
    officers like Officer Bojovic.
        While we are on the subject of condemning violence against
    law enforcement, I want to thank you, Officer Hodges, for your
    bravery in defending our Capitol against the extremists on
    January 6. It is shameful that the Republican leadership of
    this House still refuses to hang this plaque honoring you and
    your Federal officers for their sacrifice.
        So I say to my Republican colleagues in the room right now:
    If you really support law enforcement, talk to Speaker Johnson
    today. Text him right now. Tell him to hang the plaque. If
    Officer Hodges could find the courage to risk his life for all
    of you on January 6, you can find the courage to stand up to
    your extreme base and show him and the other officers who
    served on January 6 the respect that they deserve.
        With that, run the video.
        [Video played.]
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, for
    5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this very important hearing.
        I want you all to know--and please pass this along to all
    the people that you represent in law enforcement--that we
    support you, that we believe in you, that we need you, that
    this is not just something that is lip service but it's
    actual--it's an actual heartfelt statement. I think we've
    proven that, at least on this side of the aisle, time and again
    with legislation that backs that up.
        The soon-to-be mayor of the city with the largest police
    department in America, New York City, the socialist mayor-
    elect, Zohran Mamdani, has appointed Alex Vitale, a vocal
    police abolition advocate, to his so-called Community Safety
    Transition Committee.
        Vitale's book, ``The End of Policing,'' argues that
    traditional policing and law enforcement institutions are
    fundamentally irredeemable and should be dismantled rather than
    be reformed. Yet another example of how the radical left seeks
    to undermine our institutions in the name of a dystopian
    ideological experiment.
        To Mr. Thompson: In jurisdictions that are led by elected
    officials with anti-police agendas, where local governments
    have undermined policing capacity and allowed crime and
    violence against officers to rise, do you believe that the
    Trump administration is taking the right approach by deploying
    Federal law enforcement resources to stabilize these areas?
        Mr. Thompson. I do. I believe it's long overdue. I think
    it's not perfect, by any shape of the imagination, sir.
        I have read that book, by the way, and I had to put it down
    after three-quarters of the way. I couldn't finish reading it.
    It just incensed me.
        But back to the point, we hear these stories of the
    failures in law enforcement, and they are minuscule. Last year,
    there were 250,000 deaths from medical malpractice. I don't
    hear anybody calling for the elimination of doctors and
    medicine for medical malpractice. Maybe somebody could show me
    what's being done on an equal level to that attack--250,000.
        We need doctors, and we need nurses, but we also need
    civility. The rule of law has long been the backbone of this
    country. It has to be civil, and it has to be fair and
    transparent. It has to be sought after for protection--for
    perfection. To quote Lombardi, you seek perfection in the hopes
    that you'll get to excellence.
        Mistakes? Absolutely. When they break the law, let the
    Justice Department, let your local DA come in and take action.
        Mr. Pfluger. Well, that's been a problem as well, that many
    local DAs fail to prosecute violent crimes.
        Mr. Thompson. They do.
        Mr. Pfluger. Which is why we see a rise in violent crime in
    many cities that are run by elected officials like this.
        Mr. Hughes, what's the feeling when you hear elected
    officials and other people talk about doxing law enforcement or
    actually doxing law enforcement or giving their position away?
    What's the feeling there?
        Mr. Hughes. Well, doxing, as we know, has become a huge
    problem and is one of the reasons that the face coverings are
    being used now. It really has opened up a lot of law
    enforcement and their families to threats, and that is a
    problem.
        Think about it yourself. If we--me, being a law enforcement
    officer--if you were a law enforcement officer or had a child
    or a spouse who was in law enforcement and that was going on,
    that would incense anybody, I think, and would make you think
    twice about the face coverings, as well, if you had a different
    opinion, because that could protect it as well, with the
    doxing.
        Mr. Pfluger. Can you give us the operational reasons that
    the face coverings are used in addition to the prevention of
    doxing for their safety, their personal safety, or their
    families?
        Mr. Hughes. Well, besides doxing, we use face coverings
    just for operational purposes, especially when we did execution
    of warrants and things like that, for protection--for
    protection. So that's outside--that would be in a particular
    operational setting.
        Mr. Pfluger. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that are
    designed to keep the officer safe.
        Mr. Hughes. Yes.
        Mr. Pfluger. It's just disgusting to see the destruction
    and the complete pushback on the rule of law. You know, whether
    it's violence that's perpetrated against law enforcement, those
    that are wearing the uniforms, whether it's doxing, whether
    it's colleagues who say you don't have to follow orders, you
    don't have to follow orders of the Commander-in-Chief, it's
    really a sad situation that we find ourselves in.
        We thank you for the work that you do. We thank those that
    wear the uniform that serve in these dangerous situations.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let's talk about the rule of law, and let's talk about what
    is actually going on in our country with civil immigration
    enforcement.
        I want to be very clear and upfront. I was a prosecutor for
    Department of Justice for 10 years. I worked alongside law
    enforcement officers from every Federal agency, including the
    Department of Homeland Security, some of the most patriotic and
    brave individuals, who absolutely represented the very, very
    best of our country.
        Frankly, it is that experience that has made me so upset
    about what we are seeing on the streets of the United States.
        Mr. Thompson, in your opening statement, you said that
    these agents wake up, they put on their uniform, they put on
    their star, and they do their job with civility.
        The problem is, that's not the case. They don't put on a
    uniform, they don't wear identification, and they go out with
    masks on to violently, in many cases, arrest unsuspecting
    immigrants, nonviolent, many of whom are actually here legally.
        So let's take a look of the other side of the perspective,
    and roll the video, please.
        Mr. Thompson. I'm sorry. Were you asking me a question?
        Mr. Goldman. No.
        Let's roll the video.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Goldman. Now, that last clip was from 26 Federal Plaza
    in Manhattan, in my district. The individual, the officer, was
    immediately suspended when the Department of Homeland Security
    said, that conduct is unacceptable and not representative of
    ICE. Three days later, he was reinstated.
        I referred that case to the United States Attorney's
    Office. Because if we are talking about prosecuting assaults,
    that's one that seems like it might be prosecuted. We have
    gotten no word.
        The reason why this is dangerous is, that force is
    obviously unnecessary. There are no people, no women, no old
    men, no pellet guns necessary in that--what we saw on those
    videos.
        There are circumstances--and let's be very clear--where
    protesters or others are acting violently, breaking the law.
    They should be charged. But that does not mean that it gives
    ICE a license to use excessive force whenever they want.
        The problem with these masked, unidentified, plainclothes
    officers is not just something that you hear from this side of
    the aisle. It is not something at all you hear from that side
    of the aisle. But it is something that you hear from the FBI
    itself and the director, Kash Patel, who wrote a letter to the
    Department of Homeland Security urging ICE officers to stop
    walking around with masks, in plainclothes, and unidentified.
    Because numerous crimes are being committed by others,
    criminals, imitating ICE officers, including in my district,
    where a man approached a woman, said he was an immigration
    officer, and then directed her to a nearby stairwell, where he
    punched her, tried to rape her, and stole her phone before she
    was able to get away.
        That is why I've introduced the No Secret Police Act. Our
    law enforcement agents should not be masked.
        We hear about this number, 1,000 percent of threats now
    that have been raised. The data shows that there's a 25 percent
    increase of charged assaults against law enforcement officers.
    That is too much; that is not OK. There's obviously a dramatic
    increase in operations. But we should not have, in this
    country, our law enforcement agents walking around in secret
    using excessive force like that.
        You all, I know, agree that we don't need secret police in
    this country. All the criminal law enforcement agents----
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time----
        Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Wear masks, as you say----
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Goldman [continuing]. For operational----
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Reasons, not to hide their face.
        Chairman Garbarino. I now recognize the gentleman from
    Arizona.
        Mr. Goldman. I thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Mr. Crane.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today on how anti-law-enforcement rhetoric fuels
    violence against officers.
        I want to thank you also, to the panel, for showing up
    today.
        I also want to point out that Mr. Goldman was just, you
    know, talking to Mr. Thompson about how these agents, you know,
    get up every day and they're not putting on uniforms, and then
    he showed several videos. I want to point out that 90 percent
    of the law enforcement officers in those videos were, in fact,
    wearing uniforms.
        Now I want to pivot to you, Mr. Hodges. In your opening
    testimony today, I want to read through some of the transcript
    that you provided the committee. You said, ``I've been on the
    receiving end of threats and violence due to the work I've done
    in the name of the law.''
        Did you say that in your opening testimony?
        Mr. Hodges. Yes.
        Mr. Crane. You also said in paragraph 4, ``Law enforcement
    is predicated on the notion that we are a nation of laws.''
        Did you say that as well in your opening testimony?
        Mr. Hodges. Yep.
        Mr. Crane. Then you say on the second page, ``The fact of
    the matter is that right now, in the United States of America,
    there is a secret police force abducting people based on the
    color of their skin.''
        Did you say that as well?
        Mr. Hodges. Yep.
        Mr. Crane. You really believe that?
        Mr. Hodges. Yep.
        Mr. Crane. So you don't think that our law enforcement
    officers are going out and trying to arrest people who are here
    illegally that are also--have been convicted of crimes? You
    don't think that that's what they're doing?
        Mr. Hodges. I think they do that sometimes, sure.
        Mr. Crane. Yes, that's--that's what they're doing.
        It's funny, because you say in your testimony that ``I've
    been on the receiving end of threats and violence due to the
    work I've done in the name of the law,'' yet you're sitting
    here and you're saying that these law enforcement officers--
    you're fueling the same rhetoric. Now people are going to come
    after them for that.
        Do you agree with that, Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. One hundred percent.
        Mr. Crane. Mr. Hughes.
        What about you, Mr. Yoes?
        Mr. Yoes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Crane. I appreciate your service. I do. I know it's not
    easy to put on a badge. But I can't believe you would sit here
    and say that. You would complain about the treatment that
    you've received because of the work that you've done in the
    name of the law, and then you have the audacity to come in here
    and say that these men and women, Federal law enforcement
    officers, are going out there abducting people because of the
    color of their skin?
        Mr. Hodges. Yes.
        Mr. Crane. Yes. That's--that's rich, and it's pathetic, and
    you should be ashamed of yourself.
        It's funny, because I've got a buddy of mine, who doesn't
    have the same color of skin that I have, who's texting me right
    now during this hearing, watching you, a guy who worked in the
    Border Patrol for a long time. He told me, he texted me,
    ``That's a slap in the face to all of us who go out there and
    fight against cartels and criminals each and every day.''
        You're trying to make it about color of skin. We all know,
    at the end of the day, there are so many law enforcement
    officers, great law enforcement officers, that represent all of
    our communities, that have every color of skin out there, they
    pray to different gods, and they're just trying to do their
    job.
        Do you find that ironic, that you're actually doing the
    same thing that you're complaining about in your opening
    statement? Is that lost on you, Mr. Hodges?
        Mr. Hodges. I don't understand the question.
        Mr. Crane. Yes, I figured you wouldn't.
        Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration and
    Nationality Act, INA, gives the Department of Homeland
    Security, DHS, broad authority over immigration enforcement,
    detention, and removal. DHS agencies, like ICE, CBP, USCIS,
    exercise powers delegated under the INA, including arresting,
    detaining, interrogating, and removing non-citizens who are in
    violation of immigration laws.
        That's exactly what they're doing. They are actually
    carrying out the laws that we pass in this country.
        That's pathetic, man.
        I want to play a video. Do you guys got my video? Anybody?
    All right.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Crane. Now, obviously, we're sitting in here talking
    about rhetoric and how it fuels violence against officers.
        For you guys that represent so many officers around the
    country, what do you think--what do you think it means to
    people that, you know, are out there watching and listening,
    watching social media or watching the news, and they see a
    Member of Congress who sits on this committee go out there and
    behave like that?
        Go ahead, Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. I'm appalled. I'm disappointed. I believe
    it's beneath the dignity of this body, this committee and
    membership to it. Quite honestly, I find it reprehensible. It's
    obviously dangerous.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Ramirez,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Well, let me step back for a second and say that I think
    that today's hearing should be titled ``When Badges Become
    Shields: How Department of Homeland Security Agents' Violations
    of Our Rights Fuel Distrust and Anger.''
        To suggest that DHS agents are professional law enforcement
    officers bound by the same oversight and accountability is
    ridiculous.
        You see, law enforcement officers, they go through vetting
    before training, but new ICE recruits are irresponsibly being
    accelerated from vetting to training and are only dismissed if
    DHS finds out about the--retroactively acts on information
    about their failed drug test, about their criminal background,
    or other requirements that they have failed.
        Law enforcement officers are required to wear badges. They
    show their faces, and they identify themselves. But DHS agents,
    they use anonymity to terrorize our communities and to violate
    our rights.
        There are mechanisms for law enforcement officers to be
    held accountable by the public, investigated, and disciplined.
    Those mechanisms are in place for the safety of the officers
    and the American people. But DHS agents, they reject
    accountability, they disregard court orders, and they violate
    consent decrees.
        Bottom line: DHS agents lie. They act with impunity, they
    reject checks and balances, and they ignore Congress and the
    courts.
        The American people's anger and intolerance of DHS
    violations of our rights, that's what's the result of DHS's
    unlawful, unaccountable, unconstitutional actions which put the
    American people and our liberties at risk every day.
        Let me be very clear: The Department of Homeland Security--
    you can quote me on that--is the single biggest threat to
    public safety right now.
        You see, DHS agents are using chemical weapons, as you've
    seen already on footage, on protesters and bystanders by at
    least 49 times across 18 incidents in Chicago and the suburbs
    since October 1.
        Since U.S. District Court Judge Ellis issued an order
    forbidding Federal agents from using riot-control weapons on
    November 6, Federal agents used chemical weapons at least 4
    times later, including 2 cases where agents appeared to fire
    pepper spray into a moving car, possibly violating both the
    injunction and Border Patrol rules restricting chemical weapons
    use on motorists.
        Greg Bovino and the DHS claimed that he had been hit by a
    rock in the head before throwing a tear gas, but thankfully
    there was video footage, and the evidence disproves it. He
    ultimately admitted he was not hit until after he threw the
    tear gas.
        Look, the Government alleged that Marimar Martinez used her
    car to assault and impede Federal law enforcement, but then
    Federal prosecutors themselves filed a motion to dismiss their
    own case. Why? Because while she didn't assault the agents,
    they did shoot her 5 times, and then they went on and they
    bragged about it.
        You know why rank-and-file agents think that they're above
    the law within ICE, within Department of Homeland Security? You
    know why? Because their leadership, Kristi Noem, they think
    that they're above the law. DHS leadership lies. They act with
    impunity. They reject checks and balances. They ignore Congress
    and the courts.
        You know, people keep asking us around the country, why is
    it that DHS is allowed to behave this way? Well, the truth is
    that DHS was intentionally established with an overbroad
    mission and unchecked power. Republicans, many of them in this
    room right now, expanded that unaccountable power with a blank
    check and unlimited personnel. Why? To terrorize people, to
    violate their rights. Because fear is the point.
        But nothing that DHS is doing is making us any safer, and
    Americans are done. We're done. We're seeing through the lie.
    We're saying, enough is enough, and DHS has to be held
    accountable, and Congress has a responsibility of oversight.
        It is why, Chairman, I move to subpoena Gregory Bovino to
    come before this committee to answer for his actions.
        Mr. Chair, pursuant to clause 2(k)(6) of rule XI(1), I move
    that the committee subpoena Gregory Bovino.
        Also, while you're doing that, I'd like to also enter into
    the record a letter demanding that Kristi Noem resign. It's an
    updated letter for December 3.
        Mr. Guest. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.
        Chairman Garbarino. Without objection, the letter is
    admitted.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you.
        Mr. Guest. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the previous
    motion by Mrs. Ramirez.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman moves to table the
    motion.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion
    to table is agreed to.
        Mrs. Ramirez. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
        Chairman Garbarino. The committee will suspend while the
    Clerk prepares the roll.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCaul.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Guest.
        Mr. Guest. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Guest votes aye.
        Mr. Gimenez.
        Mr. Gimenez. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gimenez votes aye.
        Mr. Pfluger.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Ms. Greene.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzales.
        Mr. Gonzales. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzales votes aye.
        Mr. Luttrell.
        Mr. Luttrell. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Luttrell votes aye.
        Mr. Strong.
        Mr. Strong. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Strong votes aye.
        Mr. Brecheen.
        Mr. Brecheen. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brecheen votes aye.
        Mr. Crane.
        Mr. Crane. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Crane votes aye.
        Mr. Ogles.
        Mr. Ogles. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ogles votes aye.
        Mrs. Biggs.
        Mrs. Biggs. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Biggs votes aye.
        Mr. Evans.
        Mr. Evans. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Evans votes aye.
        Mr. Mackenzie.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Mackenzie votes aye.
        Mr. Knott.
        Mr. Knott. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Knott votes aye.
        Mr. Fong.
        Mr. Fong. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fong votes aye.
        Ranking Member Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Nay.
        Mr. Hughes. Ranking Member Thompson votes nay.
        Mr. Swalwell.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Correa.
        Mr. Correa. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Correa votes no.
        Mr. Thanedar.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Magaziner.
        Mr. Magaziner. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Magaziner votes no.
        Mr. Goldman.
        Mr. Goldman. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
        Mrs. Ramirez.
        Mrs. Ramirez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Ramirez votes no.
        Mr. Kennedy.
        Mr. Kennedy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
        Mrs. McIver.
        Mrs. McIver. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. McIver votes no.
        Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Hernandez.
        Mr. Hernandez. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Hernandez votes no.
        Ms. Pou.
        Ms. Pou. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Pou votes no.
        Mr. Walkinshaw.
        Mr. Walkinshaw. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walkinshaw votes no.
        Mr. Carter.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Green of Texas.
        Mr. Green. Green of Texas votes no.
        The Clerk. Mr. Green of Texas votes no.
        Chairman Garbarino. Are there any Members who have not been
    recorded that wants to vote?
        Mr. Clerk, how am I recorded?
        The Clerk. The Chairman has not yet been recorded.
        Chairman Garbarino. The Chairman votes aye.
        The Clerk. Chairman Garbarino votes aye.
        Chairman Garbarino. Report the tally.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 14 ayes
    and 12 noes.
        Chairman Garbarino. The motion is agreed to. The motion to
    table is agreed to.
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
    request, if now is a good time.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's UC request?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. I'd like to introduce a December 2
    article from the Los Angeles Times entitled, ``Attacks on ICE
    up 1,000 percent? Trump administration claim not backed up by
    court records.''
        I have one more as well. It's an NPR article, ``White House
    claims `more than 1,000 percent' rise in assaults on ICE
    agents, data says otherwise.''
        Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Ogles, is now recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Ogles. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    witnesses.
        You know, this is about the rhetoric against law
    enforcement, the violence against law enforcement. This isn't
    about ICE. This isn't about deportations or the Secretary doing
    her job securing the border and deporting those who are here
    illegally.
        Mr. Yoes, looking at your testimony, it was 2023 that we
    hit a record number of shootings, 378, against law enforcement.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Yoes. Yes, sir. Forty-six killed and 118 ambush
    attacks.
        Mr. Ogles. That was before President Trump was in office?
        Mr. Yoes. Yes, sir. This issue has far more to do with--
    than politics.
        Mr. Ogles. Absolutely.
        Mr. Yoes. This spans over 7 years of quantitative data, and
    that's only since we've been recording, just before that.
        Mr. Ogles. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Yoes. This has been growing. It's something that we
    need to address.
        Mr. Ogles. Then one of my colleagues on the other side had
    the audacity to claim that Homeland Security was the biggest
    threat to our country and to our safety. That pisses me off.
    That is reckless. That is dangerous.
        Our border was wide open. The Biden administration was
    allowing us to be invaded by murderers, rapists, drug
    traffickers, child traffickers. If an ICE agent needs to wear a
    mask to protect his or her family, then so be it. Everyone
    who's here illegally, in my book, should be deported, mask or
    no mask. They're here in violation of the law.
        But my colleagues on the other side, with their dangerous
    and feckless comments, fail to acknowledge the fact that our
    country is more secure today than it was previously. In fact,
    if you look at the trend lines for shootings against officers,
    they're down compared to 2023, and praise the Lord. Hopefully
    it will remain.
        Mr. Hughes, you wrote that Federal agents are now
    relocating their families, altering daily routines, and
    reducing their public presence because of targeted harassment.
    That is extraordinary, agents having to uproot their families,
    literally having to change routines because of rhetoric,
    because of dangerous comments.
        Look, it's a tough job. I come from a family of cops. My
    granddad retired from Nashville PD before it was actually
    Metro. My uncle was a cop. My cousin was a cop. I had the
    privilege of serving the sheriff's department for 2 years
    before I went into politics. It's a tough job. Every day, you
    put your life on the line.
        My very first call was an Army Ranger with PTSD who had a
    knife. Fortunately, I was able to put a countertop between
    myself until, quite frankly, more experienced officers were
    able to arrive and talk him down, and he put down the knife,
    and we got him help.
        Every day, you put yourself in harm's way. So what we
    should be doing is thanking our men and women in blue, our
    first responders, for doing a tough job.
        Mr. Hughes, I have a list of questions, but I want to--I'm
    going to give you the floor for a moment. I want you to talk
    about how dangerous the current state is because of politics
    and because of irresponsible comments from my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle that, quite frankly, are putting your
    lives in danger.
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman. The--and thank you for
    your service as a police officer.
        Those who are police officers, we understand. What do we
    say when we're thanked for things usually? ``I'm just doing my
    job.''
        Those of us who aren't police officers, we know somebody or
    have family members. We want them to be protected, our family
    to be protected, our mothers, fathers, spouses, children.
        When we get the anti-law-enforcement rhetoric fueling the
    violence, that's not acceptable. I think that we can all agree
    on that basic premise, that any anti-law-enforcement rhetoric
    should be bad, because we are the ones that are out there
    enforcing the laws, the laws that the Congress makes and the
    laws that are on the books. We are charged with abiding by the
    rule of law and executing our duties and our oath to uphold the
    rule of law.
        We are just in an environment that is so toxic. We need to
    get back to----
        Mr. Ogles. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kennedy,
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman.
        I want to take a moment to thank our witnesses for their
    service. Each of you has answered a call to protect your
    communities, oftentimes at risk of your own life. To that, we
    owe you a debt of gratitude.
        I'd like to take a moment to recognize Officer Hodges for
    his heroic actions on January 6 defending the very Capitol
    Complex that we're currently sitting in.
        Thank you for being here, for your defense of our Nation
    and our liberty, and for being there on that dark day and for
    speaking out about it since.
        Additionally, I want to acknowledge the tragic shooting of
    2 National Guard members last week, Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew
    Wolfe. Our hearts are broken, and our Nation is grieving. My
    heart is with Army Specialist Beckstrom's family during this
    devastating time of loss, and I'm praying for Staff Sergeant
    Wolfe as he recovers from this senseless act.
        Every day, law enforcement officers willingly and
    heroically place their lives and their families' futures at
    risk. They keep our communities safe, promote the regular flow
    of people and goods, and protect the public from the dangers of
    everything from gun violence to acts of terrorism, working best
    when they're closely intertwined and connected with the
    communities and people they serve.
        I'm going to be very clear: Any violence, including attacks
    against our State, local, and Federal law enforcement officers,
    cannot and will not be tolerated.
        In my district, a mass shooting on May 14, 2022, by a white
    supremacist, racist terrorist killed 10 New Yorkers, including
    Lieutenant Aaron Salter, Jr., a retired 30-year veteran of the
    Buffalo Police Department who made the ultimate sacrifice
    defending our community.
        My community is just one of many that have lost dedicated
    public servants in the line of duty. Across administrations,
    we've seen an uptick in both the number of officers who've
    experienced assault while on the job as well as those brave
    souls who've tragically been killed.
        However, what's changed with this administration is the
    escalation by President Trump himself, creating dangerous, even
    lethal situations for both law enforcement officers and the
    people they protect.
        Democrats have warned time and time again of the dangers of
    this violent rhetoric coming from a President who picks and
    chooses when to support officers based on whether or not it
    suits him. If it's to terrorize communities and detain American
    citizens, this President throws his full weight behind law
    enforcement. But if it's to prevent the toppling of the world's
    greatest democracy and the safety of our citizens, this
    President stands behind insurrectionists and even pardons
    convicted drug lords and other convicted criminals rather than
    standing behind the brave law enforcement officers protecting
    our communities and the peaceful transfer of power.
        Furthermore, President Trump is defunding the police,
    systematically undermining public safety as we know it. While
    he's making inflammatory statements insinuating the need to
    execute Members of Congress, he's canceling counterterrorism
    grant programs designed to support State and local police,
    unleashing unnecessary and violent ICE raids in peaceful
    communities in residential neighborhoods, degrading and
    neglecting critical Homeland Security missions, proposing to
    slash budgets for the FBI, ATF, and DEA, and has done nothing
    to combat the scourge of guns on our streets that injure
    officers every single day.
        Taken as a whole, Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, his own
    unwillingness to follow the law, and his failed policies
    undermine officer safety and threaten the very communities they
    protect and serve.
        Officer Hodges, you defended the Capitol on January 6 and
    suffered severe injuries at the hands of an individual who is
    now free, thanks to President Trump's pardon.
        What kind of message is the President sending to
    individuals looking to carry out violence against law
    enforcement personnel?
        Mr. Hodges. Pardoning people who assaulted myself and my
    colleagues, who attacked the Capitol, tells them that they can
    do it again, that they can do it with impunity, that they will
    face no repercussions for their actions. Unfortunately, that
    message is received loud and clear.
        Mr. Kennedy. My time is up. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzales, for
    5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Gonzales. Great. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, everybody, for being here today.
        You know, this committee used to be a committee that would
    talk about policy, and now I feel like all we do is talk about
    politics. There's enough politics in this town. I'm going to
    use my time to talk about some policy.
        In the city of San Antonio, just recently, ICE, the ICE
    facility there, had a package delivered with a white substance,
    right, as an intimidation factor to try to bully ICE to not do
    their job. I think it's absolutely sickening, and it's
    ultimately dangerous.
        My question to you, Mr. Hughes: What can we do to continue
    to support ICE agents, whether it's, you know--in particularly
    ICE agents? Is there anything we can do as lawmakers to show
    that we support the rule of law?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman.
        Look, the polarization you referred to is just
    unprecedented, and we're in really a hard time right now, where
    we really need to bring it back and really look for answers
    together.
        That said, there are many recommendations that we made,
    that FLEOA made, in looking at enhancing 18 U.S.C. 111 or 18
    U.S.C. 912. There are bipartisan bills, like Protect and Serve
    Act, Back the Blue, and Blue Shield Privacy Act.
        We need to be looking together in a bipartisan way to come
    up with protections for ICE and others so that they can do
    their jobs in an effective way in protecting us and defending
    the rule of law.
        Mr. Gonzales. Wonderful. Thank you for that.
        I agree with you, we need to tone down the rhetoric, and we
    need to bring more solutions to help things. If you have policy
    discussions, let's have those policy discussions, but let's not
    blame the men and women that are executing the policy that
    we're making here in Congress.
        My next question is for Mr. Thompson.
        Sheriffs. I love my sheriffs. They run things in my
    district, right? Sheriffs like Ronny Dodson and Thad Cleveland
    out in west Texas; Randy Brown, tallest sheriff you'll ever
    meet in your life--just doing amazing stuff. I've done a lot of
    ride-alongs with these sheriffs. I mean, they're on the front
    lines. I view them as front-line leaders.
        My question for you is on these task forces. I'm a big fan
    of task forces. I think the anti-gang and anti-terrorism task
    force, often led by DHS or FBI, I think those work. I've spent
    a lot of money--or, I've spent a lot of time and energy making
    sure that those work.
        In your opinion, what is your thoughts on these anti-gang/
    terrorism task forces and the role that sheriffs should be
    playing?
        Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for the question, sir. I
    appreciate it.
        Two thoughts.
        No. 1, task forces have been around for decades. They go
    back to organized-crime days of the 1930's and even further
    back in many ways. They are around because they do work. It
    brings together a team approach, a holistic approach, to
    responding to either perceived crime, actual crime, or the
    recovery from crime. So they do work, and they--they--they
    have.
        I want to make one point. Crime in this country has
    changed. It's much more sophisticated than it's ever been. The
    cartels have more money, more time, more interest in doing what
    they do. That's why, in my estimation, I think the President
    did do the right thing by designating the cartels as terrorist
    groups.
        The point I'm making, though, is that, for this committee
    especially, I think we all need to recognize that, with the
    sophistication and the breadth and absolute indoctrination into
    our country of these cartels, we have to do things differently.
    We have to do them vastly different. We need a greater sense of
    urgency on cybersecurity. You saw that in my testimony. We need
    to invest in that, especially in these smaller agencies.
        No. 2, I think we have to recognize that with these task
    forces are going to come some pains, some growing pains, and
    some changes. So we all have to recognize--and I'm hearing that
    from all of my sheriffs--is that we need to be helpful, whether
    it's a small agency in a rural part of the country or a large
    agency. We're going to have to be a little bit more flexible as
    we look at things.
        Mr. Gonzales. Wonderful. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
    When local, State, and Federal agencies are coming together,
    that's exactly how we tackle this problem.
        My last--in my last 30 seconds, this is for Mr. Yoes.
        You mentioned in your testimony, as of November--the end of
    November, 314 officers have been killed in the line of duty.
        I'm from San Antonio. I represent a very large district
    that goes all way to El Paso. But I was shocked that my police
    officers in San Antonio do not have bulletproof vehicles--zero.
    There are zero bulletproof vehicles. When I tried to help them
    get bulletproof vehicles, it was liberal mayors and liberal
    city councils that prevented that from happening.
        My question is this: I have a bill that helps local law
    enforcement officers get bulletproof-glass vehicles. Do you
    think that would help keep our police officers safe?
        Mr. Yoes. Absolutely. Not just ballistic glass, but there's
    also ballistics panels that could be put in a vehicle as well.
        I'd just contrast it to--you know, cities have a number of
    employees; they do a number of different functions. We don't
    hesitate to provide safety benefits, safety material, for our
    other employees to make their job safe.
        Law enforcement officers have inherently a very unsafe job,
    because, let's just be honest, there are people in society that
    many would like to think don't exist, and we deal with them.
        So giving us the tools necessary to do our job and go home
    at the end to our families--that's 2,553 families that have
    been shot. Let me tell you, the numbers are staggering of how
    many were killed, but what's even more staggering is, this is
    lives that have been changed.
        Medicine, ballistic equipment, trauma response--these
    things have brought these numbers down so, gladly and luckily,
    we've been able to save a lot of lives, but that doesn't mean
    they're not trying to kill us.
        Mr. Gonzales. Thank you again, gentlemen, for your service.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs.
    McIver, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McIver. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you to our
    Ranking Member and to our witnesses for joining us today. Thank
    you for serving our communities.
        Specifically to you, Mr. Hodges, I am just in awe to see
    you here today. I want to thank you for your service,
    specifically for protecting this very institution.
        It's unfortunate that Mr. Crane had to run out of here
    before my comments, but, you know, I want to apologize to you
    for his comments. Because for him to have the audacity to be
    disrespectful to you, given your honorable service to
    protecting this very body, is a shame.
        Republicans only have respect for law enforcement that
    supports their political agenda. That is a given here that we
    see all the time.
        There's no shocker to anyone on this committee and
    definitely no shocker to me that, yet another hearing, I live
    rent-free, space in Mr. Crane's head, over and over again,
    while he's obsessing about me doing my job of oversight, while
    he continues to fail to do his job to service the people of
    Arizona, while, there, there's a detention center that had
    deaths there, and yet, to this day, Mr. Crane refuses to have
    oversight and go there and visit that detention center, but
    steady worrying about me here doing my job, than using the
    power that his constituents have given him by electing him to
    do his job.
        Before I begin into my comments about this specific
    hearing, I want to take a moment to honor the National Guard
    officer who tragically lost her life in the horrific shooting
    last week and to extend my prayers to the Guardsman who is
    still fighting for his life. Their bravery reminds us of the
    tremendous risk our service members take every single day.
        We have all seen the National Guard deploy into
    communities, not to support law enforcement missions, but to
    wander down residential streets, help with yard work just
    outside the Capitol, or simply serve as the political scenery.
        Now, 500 more Guardsmen are being sent into Washington, DC,
    because this administration is choosing optics over strategy
    and politics over safety. These people should not be placed in
    harm's way to serve as props in the President's twisted agenda.
        But my colleagues across the aisle didn't call this hearing
    to talk about solutions. They aren't interested in those. What
    they are trying to do is point fingers so they can deflect
    blame. They want to convince the American people that
    Democratic rhetoric is the issue.
        It is not Democrats who are praising, let alone pardoning,
    people who stormed this very Capitol complex to beat police
    officers and hunt down elected officials. It is Donald Trump
    who pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 rioters.
        I hope we can all agree, as we keep saying out of our
    mouths here, that any form of violence is unacceptable. Show
    me. Say it. Gun violence continues to threaten our communities
    and the officers sworn to protect them. We should be focused on
    real solutions rooted in public safety.
        But I do not want to hear selective, phony outrage about
    rhetoric from people who only sometimes, when it's beneficial
    to them, want to protect law enforcement.
        Let's not forget, as violence threats surged across this
    country, the Trump administration froze billions of dollars to
    counterterrorism and nonprofit security grant funds--the very
    money meant to protect synagogues, mosques, churches, and even
    HBCUs and other community institutions. Republicans stood by
    silently as their own administration stripped away critical
    protections from grantees they now care--they now claim to care
    about.
        So, when Republicans sit here today and try to lecture
    anyone about supporting the rule of law and those who work to
    uphold it, the hypocrisy is alarming. They have repeatedly
    proposed cuts to the very agencies that keep officers and
    communities safe. They have embraced violent rhetoric from
    their leader, rhetoric that includes open calls for the murder
    of political opponents. They have abandoned the officers who
    defended this Capitol on January 6 and, instead, wrapped their
    arms around the people who attacked them.
        In Newark, my district, violent crime has gone down by 23
    percent because we invested in real community-based
    intervention, trauma-informed crisis response, and real
    community policing. When we talk about real action, we see real
    results.
        On the other hand, political stunts, military deployed on
    American city streets, mass ICE agents tearing through
    communities--these things make us unsafe.
        In my district, we choose trust over terror, partnership
    over provocation. The results speak for themselves.
        So let's do some real work on this committee, and let's
    leave here with some solutions, not just comments and
    statements every week.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today.
        Our brave law enforcement officers put their lives on the
    line every day to uphold our laws and protect Americans. We
    deserve every tool and protection necessary to carry out their
    mission safely and effectively without fear of being targeted
    simply for doing their job.
        Mr. Hughes, DHS has reported an 8,000 percent increase in
    threats, doxxing, and direct attacks against Federal law
    enforcement. In Alabama, we felt the impact of rising violence.
    We've lost dedicated law enforcement officers who made the
    ultimate sacrifice. What do you think is driving this
    escalation, and how has it changed the way officers approach
    their daily duties?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman.
        What is really alarming, I think, to a lot of us is the
    normalization of these anti- rhetoric. We have to understand
    that police officers are enforcing the laws. They're enforcing
    the laws that this body makes, and that the elected officials
    make. When we have that anti- rhetoric on law enforcement
    officers, it just fuels the fire. A lot of it is social media.
    We see social media that puts out information that isn't
    necessarily true all the time, and it just fuels the flames. It
    makes the violence against police officers seem normal. It's
    not right. It's against the law, and we need to do something
    about it.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you.
        I want to shift briefly to the intelligence side of this
    because when we see coordinated ambushes and targeted attacks,
    it raises serious questions about prevention. Mr. Hughes, are
    there specific intelligence-sharing gaps between Federal,
    State, and local agencies that make it harder to detect or
    prevent coordinated attacks against officers?
        Mr. Hughes. You know, after 9/11, we're supposed to really
    be filling these gaps with intelligence and sharing of
    information. But we need more. We need better sharing of
    information. We need to be sharing information, Federal, State,
    local, Tribal, territorial--to make sure that we--all law
    enforcement has the information to make informed decisions.
    That's what you all do. That's what we need to do as well. If
    we are missing pieces of information, that will affect the
    operational effectiveness.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you.
        Turning to our State and local partners, we're hearing that
    this isn't just a Federal challenge. It's hitting sheriffs'
    deputies, local police across the country. Mr. Thompson, are
    you seeing a measurable recruitment or retention impact at the
    local level as a result of these threats and the more hostile
    talks around policing?
        Mr. Thompson. We are indeed. I know several agencies,
    sheriff's offices, PDs as well that are short bodies in the
    neighborhood of 40, 45 percent, some even higher. Let's
    remember, smaller agencies are always even more difficultly
    confronted with these challenges. You have lieutenant deputies,
    you lose 3 people. The time to replace those is--it's months,
    months to get that done. It's happening on an increased pace.
    We're seeing it slow a bit, but it's still very, very bad.
        Mr. Strong. I speak from a first-hand knowledge. I served
    26 years in local government. I was the chairman of the Madison
    County Commission, and I can tell you this right here. What we
    did to solve some of these problems was we doubled the size of
    law enforcement in our county. It made a substantial
    difference. I know that Representative Gonzales mentioned about
    bulletproof vehicles. I bought 2--what are known as BearCats
    for our community, and I can tell you this right here. It
    worked for our sheriff's department. It will work for other law
    enforcement throughout this country. It is a very good
    investment to save lives. Rather than having to go through a
    door, you got the ability to use less than lethal options by
    using tear gas inside that, make them come out, and it works.
        You start looking at all the different things that you do.
    These working together is what makes law enforcement safer.
        But I will say another area I'm concerned about is the way
    technology is now weaponizing against law enforcement, not just
    against officers themselves but also against their families.
    We're seeing unauthorized tracking tools and on-line platforms
    that publicize officers' location in real time. On top of that,
    we've seen officers' home addresses, their children's school
    locations, and even family photos posted on-line in
    coordination with doxxing campaigns.
        My question to you is are you seeing that at your--each of
    your levels? Let's start with you, Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. We are seeing it. It's an exponential growth.
    The public release of privileged information--law enforcement
    PII is considered privileged information, nearly every State.
    But nevertheless, we're seeing it. It's growing radically. It's
    having a devastating, devastating effect.
        Mr. Strong. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to begin by echoing the sentiments of my colleagues
    that violence is never the answer, and that we all must hold
    our own accountable. We're here today to discuss how violent
    actions and rhetoric fuels the problems that we're having in
    this country.
        I want to respond to a couple things because what is
    striking to me is this incredible hypocrisy of this
    conversation, which is no one, no one in this committee, no one
    in this Congress, condones violence against our law
    enforcement. No one at all. Any insinuation that we are
    encouraging violence against law enforcement is just outrageous
    and should not be tolerated.
        But I think what we're also seeing here is a silence of
    people who are refusing to criticize ICE agents in particular
    who are going outside of their authority and abusing their
    power in a violent way against American citizens. There is
    silence on the condemnation of that. I haven't heard anyone in
    this panel, except for maybe Officer Hodges, criticize that.
        I think part of the problem is--you know, I am a big fan of
    Dallas Police Department. I have worked closely with them. I
    have been so supportive of them. I agree with the comments that
    we need to double-down to keep our law enforcement safe. It is
    outrageous to me, this indignation that we're having by
    Republicans who have voted to consistently defund efforts that
    keep officers safe, as many of my colleagues have pointed out.
        The addressing gun violence, for example. More officers are
    killed in gun violence and mass shootings that have nothing to
    do with a predisposition against ICE. But yet, we're not
    talking about that. But that is a direct threat to the safety
    of law enforcement.
        What we see here, though, is we have bad cops. We have bad
    ICE agents. Right now, the American public has a laser focus on
    some of these ICE agents who are exercising their authority and
    their power in a very abusive and uncontrolled way.
        I was going to offer a video today of a gentleman who was
    an American citizen who's 79 years old whose business was
    targeted in a raid, and he was trying to show the valid papers
    of his employees. Instead he was tackled and ram-shackled to
    the ground in a very violent way, fracturing his ribs, giving
    him a brain injury, as an American citizen who did not one
    thing wrong.
        I think what we're really missing here in this conversation
    is that ICE agents are frequently acting with a lack of
    probable cause to the point of, I think, one of the
    conversations that you said, Mr. Hodges, is that when you erode
    the rule of law, you erode the confidence in law enforcement.
        We have had a complete erosion of the enforcement of
    probable cause for law enforcement to engage in an arrest and
    to engage in an activity, in an experience with a member of the
    public.
        That is a problem. We have to address that too. What you're
    seeing is a public outcry and an outrage. Maybe ``Gestapo'' is
    not the right word. Maybe ``Nazi'' is not the right word. But
    you have to acknowledge that there is a pulse of the American
    people right now that are scared and they're terrified, because
    we have members of our law enforcement community who are there
    to protect, serve and protect, who are instead harassing and
    intimidating, and they're not being reined in by their own
    agency. That has to be part of this discussion.
        Because until then, it's all of it. The violence is
    unacceptable. We should never tolerate doxxing. We should never
    tolerate assault on any of our men and women who bravely serve.
    But at the same time, we can't also allow the rogueness of some
    of these members who have let this power go too far and abuse
    it. That has to be part of this conversation. Unfortunately,
    I'm out of time, and I must yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from South Carolina, Mrs.
    Biggs, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairman
    Garbarino, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        I'm deeply saddened by the attack that happened to the 2
    National Guard members very near the White House last week. As
    someone who currently wears the uniform as a Guard member
    actively serving, it kind-of hits close to home for me. My
    heart's with their families. As a mother, I can't imagine what
    they're going through during this Christmas and holiday season.
    It's very sad. Also, to the fellow service members, imagining
    what they're going through at the loss of a peer.
        However, what happened last week, it's only one incident in
    a growing pattern of attack on those that keep our streets safe
    throughout the Nation.
        Many incidents are just lone actors, just individuals, but
    many are not. In June, NGO's handed out protest kits that
    included goggles and face shields and gloves at the Los Angeles
    riots. In July, alleged antifa members attacked an ICE facility
    in Texas where 11 were arrested, and several face terrorism
    charges now.
        Activists created platforms, like ICE List, ICEBlock, and
    Stop ICE, allow anyone, anyone to track ICE activity as they
    enforce the law. Gangs like the Latin Kings have even placed
    hits and tiered bounties on ICE and CBP agents. These actions
    represent a growing ecosystem of threats against those that are
    hired to keep our country safe.
        With that in mind, I'd like to ask Mr. Hughes the first
    question. How do pockets of organized resistance from various
    groups raise national tensions and make it even more difficult
    to restore law and order?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Peaceful protests are a pillar of our democracy, right?
    It's something that we need to be respectful of. It's when it
    goes outside the parameters of peaceful protests. When we see
    that, it's very dangerous. It's very dangerous not only to the
    officers, but it's dangerous to society as a whole and our
    social fabric itself. Peaceful protests are good. When it
    resorts to violence, we are--we lose our sense of who we are.
    It hurts people.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
        What do you feel like, as a Member of Congress, that can be
    done at the Federal level to prevent this? What can the people
    in this room, on both sides, what can we do to help that?
        Mr. Hughes. Again, I go back to enhancing the law. Law
    enforcement officers are there to enforce the law, the laws of
    what you all enact. If you can look at ways to enhance 18
    U.S.C. 111, 912, and look at other bills that are there or come
    up with other bipartisan bills to protect the officers and even
    protests, right, then I think we would be better off as a
    society.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
        My second question is how do activists and NGO's provide
    cover, legitimacy, and support for the violent attacks of
    terrorist groups like antifa and gangs like the Latin Kings,
    and does this encourage escalation in tactics and violence?
    I'll open that up to anyone to answer.
        Mr. Thompson. You know, it's a reality. It is happening.
    The NGO's that were funded in the prior administration, not to
    be partisan about this, did some things that were dangerous, to
    put it lightly.
        There is a--there is a--we have to admit that there is a--
    there's a divide. There's a divide. There are some that are
    saying no one should be exempt from any law enforcement actions
    relative to immigration, for example. Then there's some on the
    other side that say, Everybody should be. But my point in this
    is that we cannot look to non-governmental organizations to put
    thumbs on the scales when given taxpayers' monies. That's
    happened, and it's got to stop.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Hernandez, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I find the lack of bipartisanship on this issue deeply
    concerning, because I think it's completely possible and
    logical to be able to hold two ideas at the same time; that
    most protests are peaceful and that most law enforcement
    officers are law-abiding, patriotic, American citizens out to
    do their job and fulfill their duty. They have my unequivocal
    support. I come from Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a high-crime
    jurisdiction. We've had many law enforcement officers fall in
    the line of duty for reasons completely unrelated to politics.
    Every time it happens, the whole island unites behind them in
    full support, in full solidarity, and absolute sympathy with
    their families as victims of crime.
        Now, I believe in holding people accountable. I think
    that's an essence of law enforcement. It's what prevents crime
    from becoming worse. So, when officers fall in the line of
    duty, I think it's crucial that we hold the people who
    committed those crimes accountable. When officers are assaulted
    in the line of duty, I think it's critical that we hold those
    people who committed those crimes accountable.
        But accountability is a two-way street. So, I am worried
    that in our defense of law enforcement, we are letting the few,
    the very few, the incredibly few--and I want to emphasize that
    point--that fail go without any sort of accountability.
        So for example, like when ICE picked up Aracelys in Cabo
    Rojo, someone who was legally in Puerto Rico, and took her all
    the way to Texas without being able to contact her lawyer, ICE
    should be held accountable.
        When ICE agents shoved a pregnant woman and she fell down
    during a raid, putting her unborn child at risk, those ICE
    agents should be held accountable.
        When far-right activists attacked Capitol Police officers
    on January 6, they should be held accountable. Pardoning them
    is not holding them accountable.
        I regret generalizations, and I think calls to defund the
    police and categorical statements toward police officers and
    law enforcement agencies tend to do more harm than good. But we
    cannot ignore the necessity and the importance of
    accountability.
        Speaking of accountability, you know, this administration
    has illegally frozen and canceled key public safety grants. In
    my district, one of those affected entities is Taller Salud, an
    entity dedicated solely to community-based violence
    intervention that collaborates with law enforcement to
    strengthen public safety. Taller Salud, which works to reduce
    violent crimes, support victims, and strengthen coordination
    with law enforcement faced a $2 million cut in their community
    violence intervention program grant this year. Without this
    funding, the ability of local partners to prevent violence, to
    support survivors, and to serve high-risk populations,
    especially women and children, has been severely undermined.
        So in July, I sent a letter urging the DOJ to reinstate
    this funding. But although DOJ has not responded, I will
    continue pushing for answers and for the restoration of this
    essential funding.
        So my questions are pretty straightforward, and I hope they
    can find some cross or bipartisan support.
        To all witnesses, to all of you here, how will reducing the
    grants and money awarded to State and local law enforcement
    officers hurt their efforts to keep our communities safe? Start
    with Mr. Hughes.
        Mr. Hughes. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for the
    question. You spoke about accountability, and accountability is
    essential in everything that we do because once we lose that
    accountability, we lose the public trust, we lose the
    strengthening of the institutions. We need to have the
    accountability.
        I'll say also that nobody, nobody should be going outside
    the law, no law enforcement officer, nobody. Hopefully there's
    no debate on that. We all have to act in accordance with the
    law. If we don't, we should be held accountable. So we need to
    be working as a body here to ensure that the laws reflect that
    and we're providing the protections and the strengthening of
    the laws to do that, and then the law enforcement officers can
    act accordingly.
        Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. I'll address the grants. We're broke as a
    Nation. We're $37 trillion in debt. Everybody has got to take
    some----
        Mr. Hernandez. Well, I--I understand that, but I also
    disagree. I've seen spending go up in areas that are not
    necessary while spending----
        Mr. Thompson. You asked me----
        Mr. Hernandez [continuing]. Goes down in areas that are. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Thompson [continuing]. The grants question, and the
    grants, they hurt. There's no two ways about it. When those
    dollars don't make it down to the boots on the ground--the
    boots on the ground. Protecting us. It hurts.
        Mr. Hernandez. Thank you.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie, for 5 minutes
    of questions.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    all of you that are here representing law enforcement across
    the country. We appreciate your bravery and dedication to our
    communities that you exhibit every single day to keep our
    communities and our country safe. So can't thank you enough for
    everything that you and those that you represent do.
        I have two different categories of questions. First, I'd
    like to talk about immigration law and enforcing immigration
    law in our communities. Then second, would like to talk about
    the horrific actions against our law enforcement officers that
    we've seen in rising numbers recently.
        So in the first category of enforcing immigration law, I'd
    like to go to Mr. Hughes. Millions of illegal aliens have
    entered our country for numbers of years during the Biden-
    Harris administration, many of whom disappeared into
    communities with no monitoring or accountability across our
    country. So my question is, what potential threats do they
    continue to pose to American communities if these individuals
    are not caught and investigated? What should we be doing to
    continue to round up those violent illegal immigrants who are
    in our local communities?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman. I think it's important.
    We always have to be looking at the violent criminals and those
    who pose a threat to our communities, and we need to be looking
    at the support to do that, the support from this body and the
    support of the administration, support of others, to be able to
    fight violent crime and to ensure that we're enforcing the laws
    that are on the books.
        It's the officers that are on the ground who are enforcing
    the law. They're not making the law. If the law needs to be
    changed, that's Congress's job. We need to make sure that we're
    enforcing and bringing violent criminals to justice.
        Mr. Mackenzie. With the increase in funding that this
    body--Congress has approved recently for those efforts, do you
    feel that you have adequate resources to go out and do the job
    that you need to do?
        Mr. Hughes. That's yet to be determined. The resources are
    given. It's being utilized, and it's hard for me to comment on
    that. I'm not within--I'm not an active law enforcement
    officer. But that's--we could always use more resources.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Understood, and certainly agree with that.
    That's why I continue to support increased funding both here in
    Congress and for our local law enforcement back home, and
    understand that need and want to continue to work to provide
    appropriate funding to make sure that we keep our community
    safe.
        Next, Mr. Yoes, with the Fraternal Order of Police, first,
    I'd like to commend your organization. We have a terrific
    Pennsylvania FOP led by Joseph Regan, local chapters that are
    fantastic. In all of our local communities, they do great work
    in representing their membership and also law enforcement in
    our communities, and so, want to commend you and make sure that
    we get that on the record as well.
        We have seen this increased rhetoric, this antipolice
    rhetoric. There was the Defund the Police movement. Thankfully,
    I think even those that espoused those beliefs have come to
    recognize that was maybe the dumbest political thing that they
    could have ever said, so they have backed off of that, and they
    have started to change their tune. They have come around and
    woken up to the realization that we need law enforcement in our
    local communities.
        But that rhetoric has damaged our law enforcement
    capabilities. When I talk to our local law enforcement, they
    say that they are challenged to find people that want to fill
    these jobs. Recruitment is down. Retention is down. Talk to me
    about what you're seeing and experiencing in recruiting new
    members, retaining those people, and how you're addressing
    those issues.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
    We do have a very strong membership in Pennsylvania. We
    actually got our birth 110 years ago. So that's where the
    Fraternal Order of Police was started, so it is very near and
    dear to me.
        You bring up a very good point. We went through this period
    where we had discussions about defunding police. We needed to
    take power away, we needed to take resources away from law
    enforcement officers, somehow thinking it was going to make
    greater--better communities. You're right. We have moved past
    that. I think most recognize that if you want to have an impact
    on law enforcement, you ask a law enforcement officer because
    they do it every single day. So when we have discussions on how
    we improve the criminal justice system and exclude a very
    important part of that, you're going to end up--I call them
    failed experiments, because we know--unless you have everyone
    sitting at the table having these discussions on how to improve
    it, you're going to have problems.
        So we went through this whole defunding period where we did
    so much damage to law enforcement. While we might have moved on
    from the whole concept of defunding law enforcement, we did--we
    made it less appealing. So we have a--we have a recruiting--
    I'll argue we don't have a recruiting and retention problem. We
    have a retention and recruiting problem because the best--the
    best recruiters we have are the people that are law enforcement
    officers who recognize somebody within a community and say,
    ``You have the qualities that we need within our community. Why
    don't you come help us shape the future of our community?''
    That's how they got into law enforcement. They didn't get
    because they saw--they didn't get into law enforcement because
    they saw a commercial on TV and said, ``Join my agency,'' or
    some slick ad. No. They got in because of a personal connection
    to somebody that reached out to them.
        We've made our jobs so less appealing to people that we're
    dealing with a problem. Here's the problem with it: It is
    almost generational, because you can't hire an officer today
    and expect them to be an effective officer for probably 5, 6
    years. So every time we have somebody walking out the door,
    know that it is not easy to fill that position.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Well, again, I want to thank you. The people
    that are in law enforcement in our local communities, by and
    large, do a terrific job every single day. We commend them. We
    thank them. They're our friends in our local communities that
    keep us safe. But the----
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman's time----
        Mr. Mackenzie [continuing]. Anti-law enforcement rhetoric
    that we've heard from----
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman's time has expired----
        Mr. Mackenzie [continuing]. What is going on against ICE
    agents----
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman's times expired. I now
    recognize----
        Mr. Mackenzie [continuing]. Expands that anti- rhetoric----
        Chairman Garbarino [continuing]. Recognize the gentlelady
    from New Jersey----
        Mr. Mackenzie [continuing]. From that as well. Thank you.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me open by stating that violent--violent--
    violence against law enforcement officers is reprehensible. I
    commend--condemn--pardon me--condemn it in the strongest
    possible terms.
        Our brave law enforcement officers risk their lives every
    day to keep our communities safe. As lawmakers, we must have
    their back. At the same time, law enforcement officers who are
    acting outside the bounds of the law need to be held
    accountable. These bad actors undermine the good work that
    officers do, and create distrust in our communities. We need to
    balance these deeds so that we can stop the actions that are
    terrorizing our communities, families, and children. We need to
    ensure oversight, while at the same time, we need to provide
    our officers with the funding and tools they need to keep us
    safe.
        I am proud that 2 of my bills do this and have earned the
    endorsement of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
    testifying here today. One bill, the LEO Fair Retirement Act,
    would address the retirement cliff for law enforcement that
    helps prioritize recruiting and retaining officers. I have also
    prioritized bringing Federal dollars back to my district to
    equip law enforcement ahead of the World Cup.
        Now, like most Americans, I was appalled by this
    administration's--this administration's decision to pardon more
    than 1,500 violent criminals who took part in the January 6
    attack on law enforcement and the American democracy.
        On January 6, 2021, law enforcement defended this building
    against a violent mob. One hundred fourteen Capitol Police were
    beaten and assaulted. Five officers tragically lost their
    lives. One of the officers who lost their life was New Jersey
    native Brian Sicknick. I was--I am also very concerned by this
    administration's budget proposal which seeks deep cuts to the
    FBI, AFT, and DEA agencies who keep guns and drugs off of our
    streets.
        These agencies are crucial partners to do--to our State and
    local departments. The proposed cuts continue to--a pattern of
    behavior of defunding the police by this President. In the
    past, the first Trump administration tried cutting COPS and
    Byrne JAG programs, programs that help with community. Fiscal
    year 2018 the administration budget sought an 11 percent to cut
    Byrne JAG. The next year it proposed completely eliminating the
    COPS Office and cuts--and cut the COPS program by over 50
    percent. Then in 2020, it again tried to erase the COPS Office.
    I strongly oppose efforts to dismantle these key programs that
    keep police officers and the public safe.
        Let me just begin by asking Mr. Hughes, many of the guns
    that are used to shoot officers as well as community members
    were illegally possessed. We must do everything that we can to
    get illegal guns off of our streets. Unfortunately, the AFT is
    hamstrung in its ability to trace guns used in these crimes. I
    recently introduced a Crime Gun Modernization Act to bring AFT
    into the 21st Century by allowing the AFT to electronically
    trace fired guns used in crimes. Can you please explain how
    modernizing crime guns tracing would give law enforcement a key
    tool to keep officers and citizens safe?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that. I
    appreciate your support for enhancing Federal law enforcement
    recruitment and retention, and that includes your leadership
    with the Law Enforcement Fair Retirement Act, which is a
    priority of FLEOA.
        The Gun Crime Tracing Modernization Act--look. It's getting
    more sophisticated with guns, and we need to be looking at ways
    to track guns and see where the--see where these crimes are
    originating, where the guns are originating, and so forth.
        I know that we support a searchable nationwide way to be
    able to do this to see where--to help identify trends, connect
    the dots, so to speak, what's going on to make sure--especially
    with the ghost guns and things like that that are coming up. We
    have to be really careful here and ensure that we're protecting
    society from these dangerous guns.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your
    organization's endorsement of my bill. I really appreciate your
    support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Knott, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to be back
    in the committee. To the witnesses, thank you for the work that
    you do, the organizations that you represent, and the support
    that you provide law enforcement all over this country.
        I must say, I'm a little bit surprised that the Democrats
    in this room and around this Congress are trying to paint the
    mirage that they actually support law enforcement, that they
    have law enforcement's back. I don't think they're going to be
    successful, the level of dishonesty that we're hearing even
    today.
        Just a short recollection, defunding the police, that's a
    Democrat priority. Cashless bail, that's a Democrat policy.
    Weak laws and light sentences, that's a Democrat problem. Open
    borders, the Democrats defended that ferociously. They continue
    to defend that policy in this very committee. No vetting
    admission into this country, that's a Democrat issue.
        Sanctuary policies. We saw that in very robust form all
    over the country in Democrat cities and Democrat States, and we
    continue to see that today. Look at California. Look at
    Illinois. Look at Democrat cities even in my home State of
    North Carolina. Sanctuary policies persist in Democrat
    jurisdictions. Even Members of this committee have called ICE
    and DHS and other law enforcement officers Nazis, racists,
    terrorists, Gestapo. I find that and I find the accusations
    shameful. Shameful.
        There is not one bit of protest to the harm that illegal
    immigration and the crime from illegal immigration is causing
    law enforcement. I worked in law enforcement for 10 years. I
    worked as a Federal prosecutor. I saw the difference between
    the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. We
    just had a question about gun crime. It was much harder to
    charge someone for illegally possessing a firearm when Biden
    was President. I saw it first-hand.
        I want to talk to you, starting with Mr. Hughes. Talk about
    the sophistication of the criminal element and what type of
    difficulties that poses law enforcement in your experience.
        Mr. Hughes. Criminals are--thank you, Congressman. As we
    know, the criminals are getting so sophisticated in a way that
    they operate. We see this here and abroad. We have to keep up.
    We need to keep pace with that. We need to be looking at every
    tool available to be able to counter, fight, combat----
        Mr. Knott. Yup.
        Mr. Hughes [continuing]. All the crimes that are going on
    in society today.
        Mr. Knott. Mr. Thompson, I want you to talk about it. I
    want you to talk--you talked about the previous administration
    and the danger that those activities have led directly to
    American streets. Talk about how open borders has increased the
    danger that law enforcement faces on the streets of the
    country.
        Mr. Thompson. I believe it's significant. I would consider
    it an obvious threat that is--I think there was a number of
    people that chose to ignore it for, I think, political reasons
    in some cases, and I think also they believed, truly, to their
    heart that they were doing good.
        Mr. Knott. Right.
        Mr. Thompson. That's fair.
        But to your question, we are now facing the most
    sophisticated criminal element in our Nation's history----
        Mr. Knott. Just when I--just when I started as a
    prosecutor, law enforcement--local law enforcement who were
    task-forced would kick in a door and they would find a Glock
    and maybe a baggy of drugs. Now it's an AK-47 and a kilogram-
    and-a-half of fentanyl.
        Mr. Thompson. And 10 computers that are----
        Mr. Knott. That's right----
        Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Used to track, trace, and follow
    law enforcement.
        Mr. Knott. That's right. The international element in local
    crime, it cannot be overstated. Am I correct?
        Mr. Thompson. You're absolutely correct. It's everywhere
    now.
        Mr. Knott. There's this perception that you're either a
    hardened criminal with an AK-47 over your shoulder, or you are
    a law-abiding citizen. In my experience, some of the best
    criminals were the hardest to catch.
        Mr. Thompson. That is a true statement, sir. Also the most
    dangerous.
        Mr. Knott. Yes. Explain that to the Members.
        Mr. Thompson. The--the level of dedication to the principle
    of the crime is driven by arrogance, ego, profit, and cruelty,
    in my estimation.
        Mr. Knott. Yes.
        Mr. Thompson. It is--it is--it has now become a
    globalized----
        Mr. Knott. Yes.
        Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Connected----
        Mr. Knott. A level of camouflage. There are criminals who
    operate in schools, in farms----
        Mr. Thompson. Deception is perfect----
        Mr. Knott [continuing]. In businesses, in law enforcement.
    Am I correct?
        Mr. Thompson. You are correct, sir.
        Mr. Knott. Mr. Yoes, briefly. I've got a few seconds left.
    There was a clip that was played earlier that showed some very
    forceful actions by law enforcement.
        Mr. Yoes. Yes.
        Mr. Knott. Given the rhetoric that we've seen from my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle and sanctuary cities
    calling these members Gestapo, Nazis, inciting fear amongst
    various communities, how has that damaged law enforcement's
    ability to act without the use of force?
        Mr. Yoes. Well, look. I looked at the videos. I think there
    was a lot of discussions here about the need to have oversight
    and discussions. We really did dive into some few things that
    are worth looking into.
        But I will tell you what we didn't dive into. We came here
    to talk about law enforcement officers that are shot in the
    line of duty----
        Mr. Knott. Yes.
        Mr. Yoes. Law enforcement officers are ambushed. Not one
    time did we even mention one person, about how they were
    sitting, eating lunch or eating dinner, and were shot.
        Mr. Knott. Yup.
        Mr. Yoes. So we missed the whole point. It's disappointing
    to say I'm finally excited that we were going to talk about a
    real issue here, something near and dear to my members: 2,553
    officers have been shot. Yet we're not talking about it. We're
    talking about tactics or politics and everything else. At the
    end of the day, it's still my members that are out there facing
    it every day.
        To answer your question, crime is changing. It's change--
    it's evolving in a way that we can't keep up with it. We're
    always going to be at a disadvantage because they make
    decisions pretty quick.
        Mr. Knott. Yup.
        Mr. Yoes. It takes Congress and it takes our Statehouses
    and our city councils to make decisions, it takes a while. So
    we're always playing catch-up ball. It is not a very
    comfortable time to be in law enforcement because we're never
    going to get ahead.
        Mr. Knott. Use of force is sometimes used. It's needed to
    be used.
        Mr. Yoes. Use of force is----
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentlemen, the gentleman's time has
    expired. We're going to--also you're going to get some
    questions in writing as well that you didn't get answered. I
    know I'm going to submit a bunch. So we hope you will be--all
    submit answers in writing at the end. But we do want--the
    witnesses have been here for a long time. We have other people
    waiting who want to----
        Mr. Knott. Gentlemen, thank you.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Walkinshaw, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Chairman Garbarino and Ranking
    Member Thompson. It's a great honor to be a Member of this
    committee, and I look forward to working with all of you.
        I want to add my condolences to the family and loved ones
    of Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom. Her unwavering commitment
    to our Nation and to protecting Americans can never be
    forgotten. I also want to wish a swift recovery to Staff
    Sergeant Andrew Wolfe.
        I want to thank all of the police officers, deputy
    sheriffs, and State troopers who protect and serve my community
    in Virginia.
        Acts of violence against law enforcement are unacceptable
    and should be condemned. Rhetoric calling for violence should
    also be condemned.
        But I'm old-fashioned. I believe in the saying that a fish
    rots from the head. What our leaders say and do matters. When
    it comes to supporting law enforcement, Donald Trump and the
    Trump administration are rotten.
        Donald Trump and the Trump administration's dangerous
    rhetoric and budget cuts, their defunding of the police,
    directly threaten the safety of Americans, including our law
    enforcement. President Trump claims to support law enforcement,
    except when they're trying to enforce the many laws that he has
    broken.
        President Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6 rioters who
    stormed the Capitol and brutally beat, tased, pepper-sprayed
    law enforcement officers, including one of our courageous
    witnesses here today, Officer Hodges.
        Brave officers with the Fairfax County Police Department
    from my district were also deployed to defend this Capitol
    during that insurrection. That department is listed on the
    plaque that Speaker Johnson and Republicans refuse to hang.
        This horrific attack on our democracy, an effort to thwart
    the will of the American people, resulted in assaults on at
    least 140 police officers, and 5 police officers lost their
    lives at the hands of the January 6 cop killers. I want to say
    their names.
        Officer Brian Sicknick, Howie Liebengood, Jeffrey Smith,
    Kyle DeFreytag, and Gunther Hashida. All patriots. All police
    officers.
        Instead of allowing for the peaceful transfer of power,
    President Trump called for violence that led to the deaths of
    police officers. Instead of condemning the insurrection and
    holding to account those responsible, President Trump has
    pardoned those that committed heinous crimes against our
    courageous officers, like Officer Hodges.
        Today, those cop killers are free. They're in our
    communities. They're committing more crimes. Officer Hodges, on
    January 6, 2021, President Trump delivered a speech on the
    Ellipse to a group of his supporters. In his speech, President
    Trump said, ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like
    hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.''
        Do you believe that President Trump's remarks at the
    Ellipse on January 6 encouraged his supporters to use violence
    against anyone trying to stop them, including police officers
    like yourself?
        Mr. Hodges. Yes, in short. It was revealed during the
    January 6 subcommittee investigation that Trump was notified
    that people were not getting into the Ellipse because they were
    heavily armed. They couldn't get through the magnetometers. You
    know what he said? He said, ``Take the magnetometers down. Let
    them in. They're not here to hurt me.''
        So he knew they were heavily armed. He knew they were here
    to hurt someone. What did he do with that knowledge? He told
    them to fight, fight, fight, and he sent them here to the
    Capitol.
        Mr. Walkinshaw. Do you believe that pardoning those January
    6 insurrectionists who killed police officers makes law
    enforcement across this country more or less safe today?
        Mr. Hodges. Less safe.
        Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair, of course to the Ranking
    Member, and of course to all of our witnesses for taking the
    time to come to this important hearing that's particularly
    meaningful to me, because I was a cop for 10 years in the
    Denver metro area, the only Latino in the Colorado delegation
    right now.
        The reason I'm in Congress is because in 2020, the ruling
    Democrats in Colorado passed a bill that took the first steps
    toward defunding law enforcement and toward making cops guilty
    until they proved themselves innocent by enshrining into law
    the concept that anything not captured on a body cam could be
    interpreted by the courts as misconduct, which was allowed to
    be presumed against the cops until the officers proved
    themselves innocent.
        I ran our riot squad. I was in charge of our riot squad in
    2020 when Denver, Colorado, suffered the most violent riots in
    the country as evaluated by the Major Cities Chiefs of Police
    Association. Not a peep from the ruling Democrats in my State
    of Colorado.
        I have buried 2 colleagues in my agency. Gordon Beesley,
    who was assassinated by an individual who was radicalized
    against law enforcement by antipolice rhetoric from elected
    leaders. Shot in the back of the head. Murdered. It's on video.
    The killing part is redacted on most of the publicly-available
    stuff.
        I buried Gordon Beesley, a school resource officer, whose
    motto was ``Find the Good in Everything.''
        I buried Dillon Vakoff, one of my friends who was in my
    riot squad at my agency. Gunned down responding to a family
    disturbance call. Air Force veteran.
        I watched my cops suffer these. I buried countless others
    when I was on the Honor Guard.
        In terms of refusing to condemn physical or political
    violence, I will remind everyone of 2 votes that happened
    earlier this year where every single member of the U.S. House
    of Representatives voted to condemn the murder of a Democrat
    leader in Minnesota, but 118 of my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle could not vote to condemn the murder of Charlie
    Kirk.
        When cops are handcuffed, when political rhetoric incites
    violence, it's the cops who suffer. Not only is it the cops who
    suffer, it's the low-income and the minority communities that
    suffer.
        In Colorado, $27 billion of lost economic productivity as a
    result of crime. That doesn't impact the wealthy people, that
    impacts low-income and minority communities. My district is 40
    percent Hispanic. You know who suffers when we don't have law
    enforcement to keep our communities safe? It's my low-income
    and my minority communities.
        I have a bunch of skilled tradesman in my district:
    plumbers, electricians, pipe fitters, welders. Colorado has led
    the Nation more years than not the last 5 years in auto theft.
    You know what happens when one of my Hispanic trade workers
    gets their vehicle stolen? Not only are they out a vehicle,
    they've lost their job because they can't show up to the job
    site tomorrow to do the work. The general contractor is not
    going to wait for them.
        I've seen this happen because I've taken those reports. We
    just had the sixth-largest fentanyl seizure in U.S. history in
    Colorado. Twelve kilograms of fentanyl, 1.7 million illicit
    pills, enough to kill 6.8 million people, every man, woman, and
    child in Colorado. It is because of the defund the police and
    sanctuary city-style politics that I personally experienced as
    a law enforcement officer in Colorado. It's why I'm in Congress
    today.
        Lest we forget, every 15 days under the previous
    administration, more Americans died as a result of drug
    overdoses like fentanyl than were killed in the entire
    September 11 terrorist attacks. That's personal to me too,
    because I am a combat veteran of the global war on terror. I
    deployed to protect this country. To turn around and to see
    these cartels and these criminals and these peddlers of poison
    being able to run willy-nilly free in our communities because
    of defund the police rhetoric and because of sanctuary city and
    State policies is absolutely onerous to me and it's onerous to
    my communities. It's onerous to the people that I have sworn
    oaths to uphold, to protect and defend, as I uphold the
    Constitution.
        We know the impacts on law enforcement officers that all of
    this has. Cops experience their first heart attack at the age
    of 46. The average American experiences their first heart
    attack at the age of 65. Cops experience the physical, mental,
    moral, and emotional injuries of this job. All of those things
    are made worse as a result of anti-law enforcement rhetoric.
        I got 44 seconds left. Mr. Yoes, with the FOP, I was a
    dues-paying member of the Fraternal Order of Police for 10
    years, the rank and file--the union that represents rank-and-
    file law enforcement officers. Can you speak to the physical,
    mental, and moral injuries that cops suffer when law
    enforcement is villainized in the media and by elected leaders?
    Twenty-six seconds.
        Mr. Yoes. Yes. I had somebody make a comment to--I wish I
    thought of this. But I had someone make a comment to me once
    before and said it's difficult to defend humanity without
    losing a little of your own. If you're not grounded, if you
    don't have the resources necessary to keep you grounded, then
    it's going to impact. We see it. We see it happening all across
    this country where law enforcement officers have to deal with
    things that most people like to think don't exist, and somehow
    think that they can sniff their badge and it doesn't affect
    them.
        We're human beings. We're just average people asked to do
    occasionally some extraordinary things, and it has its toll on
    law enforcement. That's no question.
        So when you compound all of this together, it makes our job
    more and more difficult. So, you can see we lose more
    officers--we talk about how many officers we lost; that's why
    we're here. We lose more officers every year by their own hands
    than we do to police action. That's the reality of it. That's
    where we live. We need to recognize that we're damaging people.
    When we damage someone in the protection of communities, we
    have a moral and fiduciary responsibility to fix them.
        Mr. Evans. I could go all day, but we're out of time. Yield
    back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking
    Member. Thank the witnesses for appearing.
        I am the nephew of a deputy sheriff. I understand the
    haunting words, ``in the line of duty.'' I've been to the
    ceremonies. I've cried. I appreciate law enforcement. I
    appreciate it to the extent that I think that a President who
    defunds the police ought to be sanctioned.
        I don't draw the line such that we exclude some people and
    include others. Let's not defund the police. I don't want to do
    that. But I do think that you ought to have the courage to say
    to the President, ``You, sir, are defunding the police when you
    take away hundreds of millions in grants, in programs.'' Got to
    have the courage to speak truth not only about the people in
    the street, but also the President of the United States of
    America, who has a greater voice than all of them combined.
        The ink was placed on the page on January 20 before the
    President had his hands down from being sworn in by the Chief
    Justice of the Supreme Court. Before he had his hands down, he
    had his pen and he signed a pardon. January 20. Barely in
    office. When are you going to condemn that? That has an impact
    on society. This is a reckless, ruthless, lawless President.
    You don't have the courage to say that. You glorify him.
        This is the President who stood in the Chambers of the U.S.
    House of Representatives--or actually it's the Capitol
    building--and called Democrats lunatics. No reprimand. No
    sanctions against the President. Lunatics.
        This is the President who just yesterday--this is a NBC
    news story--Trump calls Ilhan Omar garbage, says Somalis should
    go back to where they came from.
        Yes, you are right, Mr. Thompson. You said it starts at the
    top. This is the top. This is where it starts. The President of
    the United States of America, with his vituperative, incendiary
    commentary, is as much a part of the problem as anybody else.
    But you don't have the courage to say that.
        I say to you, cop killers ought to go to jail. I have no,
    no reason to want to see cop killers walk the street, people
    who shoot National Guards persons walk the street. They ought
    to be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows. But
    that doesn't mean that I'm going to excuse the President of the
    United States of America for what he's doing. He is a culprit
    in this whole scenario that ought to be called to answer for
    his transgressions.
        Now, Mr. Hodges, I was in my office when I heard your
    testimony. I have two hearings that are going on at the same
    time. Mr. Thompson has reminded me that I can't be in two
    places at once, and I appreciate him telling me because he's
    eminently correct, and I want the world to know that I try my
    best. But I was in my office, and I heard your commentary.
        Sir, you have the kind of courage that is absent from many
    people who have a voice and should speak up. For your courage,
    sir, for what you have done, I will have a flag flown over the
    Capitol of the United States of America to honor you. I think
    every NAACP branch in the country should do something to honor
    you. I think all people of goodwill should do something to
    honor you. I think that people of good will ought to
    acknowledge that this President is disgraceful and that he
    ought to be impeached.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the newest Member of our committee as well
    on the Republican side, the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Fong, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and your
    service.
        You know, it's sad and tragic that we have to have a
    hearing where we have to focus on the data that clearly shows
    that anti-law-enforcement rhetoric right now is fueling
    violence against our officers. Then, of course, the horrific
    tragedy of the shooting of the National Guardsmen, Sarah
    Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe, clearly has intensified and,
    rightfully so, put a needed focus on this.
        If I can ask--if I could ask Mr. Hughes: In California,
    Governor Gavin Newsom erroneously has attempted to overstep his
    jurisdiction by signing a bill into law that would ban State
    and Federal law enforcement officers from wearing face
    coverings to protect their identities.
        Unfortunately, as well--and I was in the State legislature
    when this passed, and I opposed it, but--California law
    prohibits delegation of immigration authority, under section
    287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now other
    States--New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan--have introduced
    similar legislation in their State legislators--in their State
    legislatures.
        What risk do these restrictions pose for Federal, State,
    and local law, local task force personnel in doing operations?
        Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Congressman.
        Again, I can't speak to State and local law, but what I
    could speak to is the issue of the face coverings and what we
    have found given the current conditions.
        That's, with the advent of artificial intelligence and
    social media, we have found that officers are being identified,
    personal information is being identified, and they're being--
    them and their families are being--are being threatened.
        So that--until such time that we can get that under
    control, I think we're in a particular position that this seems
    to be the way to go until we can change the laws and get some
    sort of normalcy where we could get that under control.
        Mr. Fong. If I can ask Mr. Thompson or Mr. Yoes--both can
    speak to this. I've talked to my local law enforcement
    agencies. Recruitment--and you mentioned this--recruitment and
    retention are real challenges.
        With these actions by Gavin Newsom and the actions of other
    States and the rhetoric now that we see, how has that affected
    the morale of law enforcement and the ability to attract the
    best and brightest to join the ranks of law enforcement?
        Mr. Yoes. So I'll go first.
        I'll go back to what I mentioned before. We don't have a
    recruiting and retention problem; we have a retention and
    recruiting problem. If we fix the retention problem, we'll fix
    the recruiting problem.
        Unfortunately, law enforcement officers, for the most part
    now, we've gone through so much turmoil, that they're--they,
    with a good conscience, are not asking people to come into this
    profession.
        So, when we see actions like--look, the most efficient way
    and most effective and, I would argue, the most safest way in
    order to be able to enforce laws is to work collectively to be
    able to do it.
        When we put up rhetoric and we make--we put these barriers
    up, what we're doing is, we're saying that we're not--we don't
    have a--we don't have a respect for the laws that were created.
    The people who have to enforce them are the ones that are
    caught in the middle of this political thing. This is not--this
    is not beneficial to anyone.
        So that's what's hurting our profession. That's why we
    can't pull people in.
        Mr. Fong. Do you want to jump in, Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. Yes. I would echo every word Mr. Yoes just
    said.
        I would go one step further, is that it is important for
    all of us to recognize that we up here, we do speak truth to
    power every day, every single day. I've never been called
    bashful in my life, and I've never stood down from saying what
    I believe.
        California and other States that are passing these laws,
    they are doing it at the risk of the public safety of their
    communities. The numbers of aggravated assaults are still sky-
    high; they are still climbing. Murders are coming down, but ag
    assaults are the leading indicator of future criminal behavior.
        Change those laws, come back to reality, and recognize, law
    enforcement's not your enemy. It is not. They save the lives
    every single day at the local level.
        Mr. Fong. Well, I couldn't agree more. We need to heed that
    sobering warning that you're providing.
        But with the time I have remaining, if I can ask you, Mr.
    Hughes, what are the challenges that you face on holding
    nongovernmental organizations accountable when they actively
    distribute protective gear, such as face shields and goggles,
    before large anti-law-enforcement protests? What challenges do
    you face with that?
        Mr. Hughes. Yes, look, I'm not active in law enforcement
    anymore, but there are--there certainly are challenges on all
    sides here. Making sure that, you know, we're holding people
    accountable, we have the intel, that we're working with our
    State and local, Federal partners, and making sure we're
    coordinating information and finding out what's going on and
    holding people accountable for their actions.
        Mr. Fong. Well, I appreciate the work that your Members do,
    especially to protect my community and the communities across
    the country.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Garbarino. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record a statement from the Federal
    Law Enforcement Officers Association and a joint statement from
    the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association
    of Chiefs of Police condemning the pardon of January 6 rioters
    who assaulted Mr. Hodges and a lot of other people.
        I really wanted one of our witnesses to say that. But
    because they didn't, I want to enter it into the record.
        Chairman Garbarino. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

    Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the
                           Fraternal Order of Police
                                january 21, 2025
          joint iacp-fop statement on the recent presidential pardons
        The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the
    Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) have had long-standing and positive
    relationships with both President Trump and President Biden and have
    greatly appreciated their support of the policing profession. However,
    the IACP and FOP are deeply discouraged by the recent pardons and
    commutations granted by both the Biden and Trump administrations to
    individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement
    officers. The IACP and FOP firmly believe that those convicted of such
    crimes should serve their full sentences.
        Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on individuals
    or public safety--they are attacks on society and undermine the rule of
    law. Allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early
    diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by
    courageous law enforcement officers and their families. When
    perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully
    accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for
    attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening
    others to commit similar acts of violence. The IACP and FOP call on
    policy makers, judicial authorities, and community leaders to ensure
    that justice is upheld by enforcing full sentences, especially in cases
    involving violence against law enforcement. This approach reaffirms our
    commitment to the rule of law, public safety, and the protection of
    those who risk their lives for our communities.

        Chairman Garbarino. Members of this committee may have some
    additional questions for the witnesses.
        I want to thank you all, all 4 of you, for being here and
    for your service and for answering the questions. You've been
    here for quite a while without taking a break.
        If we have additional questions, which I know we will, we
    would ask the witnesses to respond to these in writing,
    pursuant to committee rule VII(E). The hearing record will be
    open for 10 days.
        I just also want to thank, recognize the 2 Capitol Police
    officers who have been in the back. I thank them for their
    service keeping us safe here every day.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Garbarino. Thank you for being here.
        Without objection, this committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                               A P P E N D I X  I

                                  ----------

                                 ROLL CALL VOTE

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Submitted For the Record by Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              A P P E N D I X  I I

                                  ----------

         Question From Honorable James R. Walkinshaw for Daniel Hodges
        Question. The Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, attacked you based
    on your testimony condemning the Trump administration's creation of a
    ``secret police force abducting people based on the color of their
    skin.'' Mr. Crane stated that ``you should be ashamed of yourself''
    because Mr. Crane's friend who worked for Customs and Border Patrol
    (CBP) targeted criminals and not individuals based on the color of
    their skin.
        However, what Mr. Crane failed to state is that the Trump
    administration has been open about using ``roving patrols'' of Homeland
    Security Agents (often CBP) and using, in the words of Border Patrol
    Officer Gregory Bovino, ``the particular characteristics of an
    individual, how they look, How do they look compared to, say, you.''
    The ``you'' in that statement was a tall, white, male reporter. There
    are also numerous documented cases of Federal immigration officers
    detaining individuals based on their perceived race or ethnicity.
        Furthermore, in case 25A169 Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Supreme
    Court reversed lower court rulings saying that racial profiling is
    unconstitutional and illegal. Justice Kavanaugh justifies ``Kavanaugh
    Stops'' based on the color of a suspect's skin by pointing out that, if
    the person is a U.S. citizen, they will be ``free to go'' after a brief
    encounter with law enforcement. In our hearing, Mr. Crane appeared to
    lack knowledge of this new and profound change in the interpretation of
    the law.
        From the perspective of a seasoned law enforcement professional,
    what harms to public safety do you believe will come from the growing
    use of racial profiling in Federal immigration enforcement?
        Answer. Eli Crane is a conspiracy theorist who has no issue sharing
    a stage with white supremacists and supports insurrectionists.\1\ He
    has consistently spread lies about the 2020 Presidential election and
    attempted to indemnify Donald Trump and his insurrectionists for their
    coup. When asked what I and the other police officers who were injured
    defending the United States would think about his support of the
    insurrection, he implied we were ``corrupt''.\2\ As you have noted, his
    outburst was neither based in demonstrable fact nor sound reason, so I
    must suspect that my very existence in the public sphere is a reminder
    to him that the seditionists he supports ultimately failed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod. ``GOP Lawmakers Will Appear Alongside
    White Nationalists, Nazi Apologists, at Rally to Support
    Insurrectionists.'' Arizona Mirror, September 23, 2021. https://
    azmirror.com/2021/09/23/gop-officials-will-appear-alongside-white-
    nationalists-nazi-apologists-at-rally-to-support-insurrectionists/.
        \2\ Forbes Breaking News, Dir. Eli Crane Asked Point Blank If
    Donald Trump Bears Any Responsibility For Jan. 6 Capitol Attack. 2024.
    07:59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgew-s0MmFg.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I wasn't able to follow Crane's insult masquerading as a question
    at the time, but now I am able to review the transcript and can parse
    his perverse rhetoric. He said to me, ``you would complain about the
    treatment that you've received because of the work you've done in the
    name of the law,'' referencing some of the threats I've faced for
    defending the Capitol and speaking about it publicly, and then asked
    me, ``Do you find that ironic that you are actually doing the same
    thing that you're complaining about in your opening statement?''
        This is telling as here Crane makes plain the fallacy that every
    Republican-associate in front of a microphone was operating under
    during that hearing.
        Whether it is born from ignorance, apathy, sycophancy, or malice,
    too many in that hearing and in this country conflate criticism of the
    state with actionable threats against the state. In actuality the
    former is not only perfectly legal, it is absolutely necessary to the
    vitality of a democracy, while the latter is already criminal. However,
    by pretending that describing the illegal and unethical actions
    committed by the state is tantamount to threats, a tyrannical
    government can leverage the full weight of its law enforcement
    apparatus against those who simply speak aloud the horrors that they
    witness. It is this way they seek to silence all critics of the present
    administration, and once critics are silent it would be that much
    easier for the authoritarians to consolidate their power.
        This is particularly insidious because the more egregious the
    actions of the state are, the more severe the language you must use to
    accurately describe it. And the more severe your language is, the more
    ``justification'' these people have for claiming that you are using
    ``dangerous rhetoric'' that poses a threat to law enforcement.
        You ask what harms will come to public safety as a result of racial
    profiling in Federal law enforcement. Unfortunately, it is not a
    hypothetical future I must warn of, but rather I describe harms that
    are being inflicted upon the American people presently.
        In the District of Columbia, 61 percent of residents surveyed who
    noticed the presence of additional law enforcement felt less safe with
    them present. Communities have become more reluctant to call 9-1-1 to
    report crimes, for fear of bringing immigration enforcement down on
    themselves, giving common criminals a free hand in continuing their
    destructive practices against the community. Key witnesses to criminal
    prosecution have stopped cooperating completely out of fear of being a
    target of ICE. Billions of dollars were diverted from the Pentagon to
    fund this immigration crackdown, weakening our military readiness. Law
    enforcement resources are being diverted away from all other aspects of
    the law, from white-collar crime to domestic terrorism, in order to
    round up as many non-white people (or as Eli Crane likes to call them,
    ``colored people'')\3\ as possible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NBC News. ``Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as
    `colored people' in House floor debate.'' July 14, 2023. https://
    www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-eli-crane-refers-black-americans-
    colored-people-house-floor-rcna94200.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even police officers aren't safe. Multiple local law enforcement
    officers have been detained and even arrested, hindering or preventing
    them from working for the communities that they have sworn to protect
    and serve.
        Police departments have worked tirelessly to earn the trust of
    their communities and this state-sanctioned racism in immigration
    enforcement is undoing all of that progress. Police departments need
    the trust of their communities if they are to effectively fulfill their
    mission, and we are losing that vital relationship thanks to the
    policies and actions of this administration.
       Questions From Honorable James R. Walkinshaw for Jonathan Thompson
        Question 1a. During the hearing, you made a point of highlighting
    the potential for toxic and divisive social media content to fuel
    division and even violence. You also correctly called on us as leaders
    to recognize the role that our statements, posts, and on-line
    activities can play in furthering division and even inflaming violence
    against law enforcement.
        According to public reporting, the president of the National
    Sheriffs' Association, Sheriff Chris West, participated in the protest
    that led to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol and the deaths of
    police officers on January 6, 2021. He has stated that he did not enter
    the Capitol and claims that he witnessed no violence.
        On February 6 of this year, Mr. West shared on his Facebook page a
    photo of himself in front of the U.S. Capitol. A friend of Mr. West's
    commented on that photo, ``Trump is on a role [sic] to get this Country
    Right. Now we need DA and AGs to start aggressively prosecuting the
    criminal cops under 18 USC 242.''
        Mr. West liked this comment.
        In your testimony, Mr. Thompson, you point to growing anti-law
    enforcement rhetoric, amplified through social media and public
    discourse, resulting in violence against law enforcement.
    Unfortunately, the president of the Sheriff's Association has, himself,
    engaged, amplified, and promoted anti-law enforcement rhetoric. Liking
    and amplified a post describing Federal law enforcement tasked with
    investigating the many crimes committed on January 6, 2021, is
    precisely the kind of rhetoric that you decried in our hearing.
        Does the Sheriff's Association believe the Federal law enforcement
    personnel tasked with investigating the crimes committed at the Capitol
    on January 6, 2021, to be ``criminal cops''?
        Answer. We categorically reject the premise of this question.
    January 6, 2021 was 5 years ago and not related to the purpose of this
    hearing.
        Question 1b. Does the Sheriff's Association condemn Sheriff West's
    anti-law-enforcement rhetoric as you have correctly condemned the anti-
    law-enforcement rhetoric of others?
        Answer. Sheriff West's social media gesture cannot be construed by
    any reasonable person as anti-law enforcement. It was a passive gesture
    in a social media message.

                                     [all]