Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 286
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-04T09:06:56Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation aims to strengthen penalties for making false or misleading communications that trigger unnecessary emergency responses, commonly known as "swatting." It seeks to protect public safety, reduce waste of emergency resources, and deter hoax calls that could lead to harm.
Key Provisions
- Criminal Penalties (18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)): Prohibits intentionally conveying false or misleading information in two main scenarios:
- Information that could reasonably be believed and suggests a violation of specific federal laws related to terrorism, biological weapons, explosives, aircraft sabotage, or nuclear threats (e.g., chapters 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of Title 18; certain sections of the Atomic Energy Act and Title 49).
- Using mail or interstate/foreign commerce facilities (like phone or internet) where the information could reasonably cause an emergency response and indicates a state or federal crime or endangers public or individual health/safety.
- Penalties: Fine, up to 5 years imprisonment, or both. If serious bodily injury results, up to 20 years; if death results, up to life imprisonment.
- Civil Liability (18 U.S.C. § 1038(b)): Allows parties (e.g., victims or agencies) to sue the offender for costs incurred from emergency or investigative responses to the false information. Applies to the same scenarios as the criminal provision.
- Definition (New 18 U.S.C. § 1038(e)): Defines "emergency response" as any deployment of personnel/equipment, evacuation orders, or public warnings by U.S. or state public safety agencies (including those handling crime detection, fire, or rescue) or private non-profit fire/rescue organizations.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1038 beyond primarily federal terrorism-related hoaxes to include false reports of any state or federal crime or public safety threats that trigger emergency responses via modern communication methods.
- Introduces graduated penalties based on harm caused (injury or death), which were not explicitly scaled in the prior version.
- Adds a parallel civil remedy for recovery of response costs, mirroring the criminal elements, to provide financial accountability.
- Includes a clear definition of "emergency response" to clarify applicability and reduce ambiguity in prosecutions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Reduces strain on law enforcement, fire, and rescue services by deterring resource-draining false alarms, potentially saving time and money for real emergencies.
- On Citizens: Protects individuals targeted by swatting from risks like accidental injury during armed responses; allows victims to seek compensation for related expenses (e.g., property damage or trauma).
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could apply to cross-border communications if using U.S. interstate/foreign commerce facilities.
- Overall, promotes safer communities by discouraging dangerous pranks or harassment tactics.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Offenders: Individuals or groups making false reports, facing harsher criminal and civil consequences.
- Victims: Targets of swatting or affected parties, gaining stronger legal recourse for harm or costs.
- Emergency Responders and Agencies: Federal, state, and local public safety entities (e.g., police, fire departments) and non-profit rescue organizations, benefiting from fewer frivolous calls.
- Courts and Prosecutors: Increased caseload potential for handling violations, with clearer guidelines for enforcement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Enhances enforcement against hoax crimes by broadening federal jurisdiction to state-level threats, potentially leading to more uniform prosecutions nationwide. The civil action provision empowers private lawsuits, which could increase accountability without relying solely on government action.
- Constitutional: Balances free speech protections by focusing on intentional false communications with foreseeable harm, likely upholding under First Amendment scrutiny (as hoaxes aren't protected speech). No major due process concerns, as intent and reasonableness requirements provide safeguards.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (introduced by Rep. Kustoff with co-sponsors from both parties) signals broad support for addressing swatting amid rising incidents involving public figures and streamers. Could set precedent for future laws on digital misinformation endangering safety.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (28)
Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5], Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23], Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28], Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4], Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15], Rep. James, John [R-MI-10], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Vindman, Eugene [D-VA-7], Rep. Moore, Riley [R-WV-2], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11], Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25], Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6], Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23], Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23], Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4], Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-01-09: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-09: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-09 — PDF (4 pages)