Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What specific federal statutes prohibit doxing of law enforcement officers?
Executive summary
There is no single, longstanding federal statute that plainly says “doxing federal law enforcement officers is illegal” across all circumstances; instead, lawmakers have recently proposed a specific federal crime (the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act) to fill that gap by amending Title 18 to criminalize publishing a federal officer’s name with intent to obstruct an investigation or immigration operation (proposed S.1952/H.R.5118) [1] [2]. Existing federal tools—cyberstalking, interstate communications/stalking, obstruction, CFAA and other provisions—have been used in doxxing-related cases but do not uniformly or explicitly target publication of officers’ identities; reporting and legal commentary note those limits and the drive for a clear federal standard [3] [4] [5].
1. The new, focused federal proposal: what it would do
Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act (S.1952; companion House text H.R.5118) would amend Title 18 to make it unlawful to “make the name of a Federal law enforcement officer publicly available with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration enforcement operation,” defining “Federal law enforcement officer” broadly and prescribing penalties up to five years’ imprisonment and fines similar to related statutes [1] [2] [6].
2. Why sponsors say the law is needed—incidents and gaps
Supporters point to episodes such as publication of ICE/DHS agent identities after local immigration operations and to protest-era doxxing (e.g., Portland 2020) to argue existing state laws vary, protections are inconsistent, and current federal statutes do not uniformly cover doxxing of federal officers—hence a federal backstop is warranted [7] [8] [9].
3. What federal law already covers—patchwork, not a single “doxxing” statute
Legal observers and advocacy groups note that no single federal statute historically labeled “doxxing” exists; instead prosecutors apply multiple statutes depending on conduct and proof of intent—examples include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when hacking is used, federal cyberstalking or interstate stalking/communications statutes where threats or harassment cross state lines, obstruction provisions when investigations are impeded, and other criminal provisions for true threats or incitement [3] [4] [5].
4. Practical limits of existing federal statutes
Scholars and reporting highlight under‑enforcement and narrow language in statutes like the Interstate Stalking statute and other communications laws, which can make federal action rare or hard to sustain for generalized doxxing that lacks a clear threat, hacking, or interstate stalking element; that gap underlies calls for a statute explicitly focused on publication of federal officers’ identities tied to obstructive intent [4] [7].
5. Enforcement and constitutional tradeoffs flagged by critics
Commentary from civil‑liberties and free‑speech perspectives (and some legal observers) argues that broad criminalization of publishing names risks chilling legitimate reporting and political protest about government actors; proponents of the bill frame it narrowly—intent to obstruct enforcement—to limit constitutional overreach, but reporting notes this balance is at the heart of policy debates [5] [7].
6. How penalties compare and who would be covered
The Blackburn bill aligns its maximum penalty—up to five years— with penalties in related federal statutes criminalizing malicious disclosure of sensitive information; it expressly covers federal officers, agents, or employees authorized to engage in preventing, detecting, investigating, or prosecuting federal crimes or immigration law violations [2] [6].
7. State law variation and recent prosecutions as context
States have moved faster in some cases—several states now have anti-doxxing laws or harassment laws that can reach doxxing—while high‑profile federal prosecutions have applied cyberstalking, hate‑crime, or other statutes in targeted cases involving doxxing or swatting, illustrating both the adaptability of existing law and the uneven protection for different victims [10] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking a clear answer
Available sources do not show an established, standalone federal statute that expressly bans “doxing” of federal officers in all situations prior to these 2025 proposals; rather, Congress is considering a targeted amendment to Title 18 (S.1952/H.R.5118) to create an explicit obstruction‑based offense, while enforcement today relies on a constellation of federal and state laws applied case‑by‑case [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses the provided sources; it does not include texts or later action beyond the cited bill pages and contemporary reporting [1] [2] [7].