[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]