A bill recently introduced by House Republicans would make it a deportable offense for a non-citizen to hurt law-enforcement dogs.

1. What the reported proposal actually says — focus on federal working dogs

Reporting and congressional press releases in the search results center on legislation to protect federal working dogs and to implement Government Accountability Office recommendations for agency programs, not an explicit provision making it a deportable offense for non‑citizens who harm law‑enforcement dogs ^[1]. Rep. Rudy Yakym’s press release says his Working Dog Health and Welfare Act — the House companion to S.2414 — passed the House and aims to require federal agencies to follow GAO recommendations to ensure those dogs are protected; the release cites “more than 5,550 working dogs across the federal government” as the population affected ^[1].

2. Where a deportation penalty would be found — not present in available texts

The search results include texts for several bills on Congress.gov — e.g., Greyhound Protection Act, Pet and Livestock Protection Act, and Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act — but none of the provided Congress.gov snippets or the Yakym press release show language creating a new immigration removal ground that would make harming a working or law‑enforcement dog a deportable offense ^{[4] [3] [2] [1]}. Available sources do not mention a deportation provision tied to harming police or working dogs.

3. Existing enforcement approaches and penalties in view of these bills

The bills and press materials in the results focus on administrative and criminal enforcement improvements: federal agencies’ internal standards for working-dog programs and creation of an Animal Cruelty Crimes Section at DOJ to pursue animal‑cruelty cases, rather than immigration enforcement per se ^{[1] [2]}. The Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act text would establish a DOJ section to enforce federal animal cruelty laws, indicating a criminal‑justice route for prosecutions ^[2].

4. Political framing and competing narratives in the sources

House Republican materials and allied groups frame such measures as bolstering law‑enforcement capabilities and officer safety by protecting working dogs ^[1]. Opposing or critical framing in the search results centers on broader House Republican priorities — notably GOP appropriations proposals that critics say “defund law enforcement” or cut federal law‑enforcement positions — which shows partisan debate over law‑enforcement policy even as separate animal‑protection bills advance ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The juxtaposition in the provided materials suggests two parallel debates: one narrowly about animal‑welfare protections and another about Republican budget choices affecting federal law enforcement ^{[1] [5]}.

5. What the sources do not say — limits of current reporting

The search results do not show statutory text that creates immigration consequences for harming a dog, do not quote DOJ or DHS policy declaring such acts deportable, and do not provide floor debate transcripts describing a deportation penalty for non‑citizens who injure law‑enforcement dogs ^{[4] [1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a deportation provision tied to dog‑injury offenses.

6. What to watch next — where a deportation element would appear if proposed

If lawmakers intended to make harm to law‑enforcement dogs an immigration removal ground, it would likely appear either as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act or as an explicit cross-reference in criminal statutes used for removability. Future Congress.gov texts, committee reports, or floor statements would show that change; monitor updated bill texts and DOJ/DHS statements on enforcement ^{[4] [2]}.

Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided search results; it does not incorporate outside reporting or the full Congressional Record. All factual assertions above are drawn from the cited sources ^{[1] [4] [2] [3] [5] [6] [7]}.