What are the specific laws against doxxing police officers in the US?

1. What Congress has proposed: a narrow new federal crime

The bills introduced in the 119th Congress, titled the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, would amend Title 18 to make it unlawful to publish the name of a “Federal law enforcement officer” with the specific intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or an immigration enforcement operation; supporters framed the bills as protecting ICE and other federal officers and set penalties including fines and up to five years’ imprisonment in some statements ^{[1] [2] [7] [8]}. Legislative trackers and analyses summarize the bill’s scope as limited to federal officers and focused on obstruction of investigations rather than a broad ban on naming officers ^{[4] [3]}.

2. What existing federal criminal law already covers

Prosecutors currently rely on a patchwork of federal statutes to address dangerous conduct tied to doxxing: obstruction statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §1510 can apply when publication impedes an investigation, and statutes criminalizing threats or the disclosure of restricted personal information tied to facilitating violence can also be used ^{[4] [9]}. Those statutes are not framed as “anti‑doxxing” laws but can reach the same harmful outcomes when intent to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate violence is present ^{[9] [4]}.

3. State laws and the uneven legal landscape

States have moved unevenly: a minority have enacted statutes that explicitly criminalize doxxing or limit anti‑doxxing protections to certain public officials — Council of State Governments documents seven states that explicitly limit anti‑doxing statutes to public sector officials such as judges or law‑enforcement officers, and many other states rely on harassment, stalking, and threatening statutes to police abusive online disclosures ^[6]. This leaves variation in who is protected, what information triggers liability, and what penalties apply ^[6].

4. First Amendment and civil‑liberties concerns

Legal scholars and civil‑liberties groups warn that narrowly targeted doxxing prohibitions can raise serious First Amendment questions when they criminalize publishing names and information about public officials, because naming officials can be core political speech and a tool for accountability; critics argue that existing laws addressing true threats, incitement, harassment, and privacy torts are a better fit than new content‑based federal criminal prohibitions ^{[5] [10]}. Academic commentary specifically contends that the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act risks unconstitutional overbreadth by chilling reporting and political advocacy that names officers ^[10].

5. Politics, motives, and enforcement realities

Advocates for the bill — including sponsors and congressional offices — link the measure to publicized incidents (for example, municipal officials publicly naming ICE participants) and frame the bill as protecting officers from gangs and violent reprisals; opponents counter that the law privileges federal officers over other doxxing victims and could be used to punish transparency efforts or local officials who publicize enforcement action ^{[7] [11] [4]}. The practical effect, if the bills become law, would be narrow federal jurisdiction over intentional obstruction involving federal officers; everyday naming of local police or reporting of alleged misconduct would more likely continue to be governed by state law, tort claims, or existing federal statutes ^{[1] [4] [6]}.