Fact check: What are the potential penalties for doxxing under US federal law as of 2025?

1. Why federal law looks messy — no single “doxxing” statute, only tools in the toolbox

Legal summaries from mid‑2025 emphasize that Congress has not enacted a stand‑alone federal doxxing statute; instead, prosecutors rely on a patchwork of existing federal statutes—interstate communications provisions, federal stalking/harassment statutes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and statutes enacted for non‑consensual intimate-image distribution—to pursue harmful disclosures of personal information ^{[1] [3]}. This setup means federal exposure depends heavily on the facts of each case: whether the disclosure crossed state lines, targeted a protected official, involved computer intrusion, accompanied threats, or intersected with newly strengthened federal laws addressing AI deepfakes and revenge porn ^{[1] [3]}. The result is case‑specific criminal liability rather than a clear, predictable federal penalty schedule.

2. What penalties federal statutes can produce — fines to multi‑year imprisonment

Sources cite a range of possible punishments by statute and precedent. Some reporting describes federal prosecutions tied to official‑target protections producing sentences up to five years in prison for particular doxxing‑related offenses, indicating that serious federal charges can carry multi‑year terms when the conduct violates statutory protections or involves threats and harassment ^[4]. Separately, recent federal legislation aimed at AI deepfakes and non‑consensual intimate imagery carries lengthy prison terms and substantial fines, showing a legislative trend toward harsher federal penalties for technologically enabled abuses that often accompany or mirror doxxing harms ^[3]. These disparities reflect different statutory maximums rather than a single penalty for “doxxing.”

3. State laws and civil remedies change the stakes on the ground

Independent reporting and analyses note that several states have enacted explicit anti‑doxxing laws while others prosecute under traditional harassment, stalking, or privacy statutes; these state laws can create criminal penalties, statutory fines, and independent tort remedies for emotional and psychological damages ^[2]. Because doxxing often involves local victims and local harms, state prosecutions and civil suits frequently produce the most immediate consequences: criminal charges under state law, monetary judgments, and restraining orders. The multiplicity of venues means perpetrators may face concurrent state and federal exposure depending on interstate elements or federal interests ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Recent prosecutions show patterns but not uniform sentencing

Contemporaneous news accounts of arrests for cyberstalking and harassment in 2025 illustrate how prosecutors frame online abuse cases, yet many reports stop short of laying out a universal federal sentencing range for doxxing itself ^{[5] [6] [7]}. Coverage of individual prosecutions highlights charges such as cyberstalking, producing AI‑gen images tied to harassment, and targeted campaigns using many accounts, demonstrating how prosecutors stitch existing statutes to specific conduct. These examples underscore that criminal outcomes hinge on charging choices, available evidence, and statutory elements invoked rather than on a standalone doxxing penalty.

5. Conflicting claims and a notable outlier about a five‑year maximum

One source explicitly states doxxing is a federal offense punishable by up to five years, citing a prosecution of an individual charged under a protective statute for public‑serving officials ^[4]. This assertion contrasts with broader legal summaries that emphasize the absence of a single federal doxxing statute and the diversity of applicable laws and penalties ^{[1] [2]}. The discrepancy likely reflects different legal pathways: some prosecutions rely on specific statutes with defined maximums, producing five‑year caps in certain contexts, while other pathways carry different maximum penalties or only civil liability ^{[1] [4]}.

6. What’s missing from the public record and why it matters to policy

Analysts note that much reporting focuses on arrests and headline cases without systematically cataloging sentencing outcomes or the interaction between new federal anti‑deepfake laws and doxxing prosecutions ^{[3] [5]}. This omission obscures the practical deterrent effect and the degree to which federal law has actually increased punishments for doxxing‑like conduct. Policymakers and advocates pushing for explicit federal anti‑doxxing legislation point to this fragmentation as a reason to codify specific elements and penalties; opponents might argue existing tools suffice if vigorously enforced ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Bottom line for readers: expect variability and context‑dependent risk

As of 2025, individuals engaging in doxxing face an uncertain but real mix of risks: possible federal charges with multi‑year maximums in some contexts, state criminal penalties where statutes exist, and civil lawsuits for harms. The clearest takeaway is that penalties depend on which statutory hook prosecutors use, the presence of threats or computer intrusions, and evolving federal laws targeting related abuses, so outcomes will vary significantly across cases and jurisdictions ^{[1] [3] [2]}.