This bill directs the Attorney General to establish a federal regulatory framework that standardizes how Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies collect and submit data on every instance in which deadly force is used. It centralizes those submissions at the Department of Justice and requires a uniform reporting form and minimum data elements while prohibiting public release of personally identifying information.
Why it matters: the bill aims to fill longstanding gaps in national statistics on police deadly force by forcing a single, DOJ-supervised collection and attaching a financial penalty to states or localities that fail to report. The combination of standardized fields and centralized publication (with privacy carve-outs) will change what researchers, oversight bodies, and policymakers can analyze — and will shift compliance burdens to law enforcement agencies and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Attorney General to issue rules that create a standardized national reporting system for incidents where law enforcement uses deadly force and to make a submission form available for agencies to send data to DOJ.
Who It Affects
Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that use deadly force; the Department of Justice (particularly the Bureau of Justice Statistics); researchers, oversight organizations, and community groups that rely on national data.
Why It Matters
It establishes a federal reporting standard where none uniformly exists today, centralizes the data at DOJ, and conditions a portion of Byrne JAG funding on compliance — shifting incentives and data quality expectations across jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill charges the Attorney General with writing regulations — after consulting stakeholders — that define what counts as a reportable instance of deadly force and what fields every report must include. The regulations must produce a single, standardized form that agencies will use to submit incident reports to the Department of Justice.
That standardization is designed to make national aggregation feasible and to reduce the ad hoc, inconsistent data collection that now blocks reliable analyses.
The regulations must specify a set of required data elements about both the person who was the target of deadly force and the officer who used it, and about the circumstances of the incident. Agencies must also provide the relevant agency’s contemporaneous explanation for why deadly force was used, the policies in effect at the time, and an account of any non-lethal tactics attempted before deadly force.
Agencies will keep those records on file for a statutory minimum period and submit them to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and other DOJ components the Attorney General designates.When DOJ publishes the collected data to Congress and the public it must exclude the names and other personally identifying information of officers, targets, and other involved individuals. The bill narrows public disclosure: identifying information cannot be released except as strictly necessary to comply with the statute, to disclose information to the person it concerns, or pursuant to litigation; the bill also bars such identifiers from FOIA releases (with the same narrow exception).
That combination attempts to balance transparency on patterns and circumstances with privacy protections for individuals.To drive compliance, the measure ties federal Byrne JAG grant eligibility to reporting: jurisdictions that fail substantially to comply for a fiscal year face a mandatory reduction in their next-year award. The statute also requires agencies to maintain the reported records for a minimum period, enabling later examination by DOJ, litigants, or authorized researchers consistent with the privacy limits spelled out in the bill.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must issue final regulations within six months after enactment to establish the reporting framework and the standardized submission form.
Regs must require agencies to retain reported deadly-force data for at least four years before disposition.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics must publish the aggregated data to Congress and the public but must strip out personally identifying information prior to release.
The bill bars public release of names and identifying information and excludes that information from disclosure under FOIA, except to the individual concerned or as needed to comply with the statute or litigation.
If a State or local unit that receives Byrne JAG funding fails substantially to comply for a fiscal year, the Attorney General must cut that jurisdiction’s next fiscal year Byrne JAG award by 10 percent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Defines the Act’s name as the National Statistics on Deadly Force Transparency Act of 2025. This is a standard heading provision that has no operative effect beyond identifying the statute for citation and reference.
Attorney General to issue regulations
Directs the Attorney General — after stakeholder consultation — to issue regulations establishing a national system for collecting and compiling data on all instances of deadly force by Federal, State, and local officers. Practically, this gives DOJ rulemaking authority to set definitions (what constitutes 'deadly force'), reporting deadlines, formats, and which DOJ components receive the submissions.
Required data elements and submission mechanics
Specifies the substantive fields the regulations must require: identifying characteristics of both the target and the officer (race or ethnicity, gender, approximate age, and actual or perceived religious affiliation), time and location, alleged criminal activity, nature of deadly force (including firearms), agency explanation for use, a copy of agency guidelines in effect, and description of non-lethal efforts before deadly force. The section also mandates a standardized form, submission to BJS and other DOJ components, and a statutory minimum retention period for agencies’ records (not less than four years). These mechanics create an operational checklist agencies will use when building or adapting records systems.
Bureau of Justice Statistics duties
Assigns BJS responsibility to deliver the collected data to Congress and to make it publicly available, subject to the Act’s privacy limits. In practice BJS will need to establish intake, validation, aggregation, redaction, and publication workflows and invest in data processing capacity if current resources are insufficient.
Privacy limits, FOIA exception, and enforcement via Byrne JAG
Section 4 forbids releasing names or identifying information about officers, targets, or other involved individuals, with narrow exceptions for compliance needs, disclosures to the individual concerned, or litigation; it also precludes FOIA release of those identifiers. Section 5 creates a concrete enforcement hook: jurisdictions receiving Byrne JAG funds that fail substantially to comply will face a 10 percent reduction in their next-year Byrne JAG award. Together these provisions trade stronger privacy protections and a federal funding stick for public access to unredacted records.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Researchers and academic institutions — gain standardized, nationally aggregated fields that allow cross-jurisdictional analysis of deadly-force incidents and improve replicability of studies.
- Civil rights and community organizations — obtain a consistent public dataset (with identifiers removed) to analyze patterns by race, location, and incident type and to support advocacy and policy reform efforts.
- Congress and policymakers — receive regular, comparable statistics to inform legislation, oversight, and resource allocation decisions, reducing reliance on patchwork local reporting.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local law enforcement agencies — must adapt records systems, train staff, and allocate time to complete standardized forms and to preserve reports for the statutory retention period.
- Department of Justice — particularly the Bureau of Justice Statistics — will face increased intake, data validation, redaction, and publication workload and will need resources to implement the collection and produce usable public outputs.
- Law enforcement officers and agencies’ privacy and litigation exposure — while the bill shields names from public release, agencies will still hold and could be compelled to produce identifying information in litigation, increasing internal legal risk and potential discovery costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between generating a usable, national dataset to improve oversight and policy (which argues for broad disclosure and granular data) and protecting individuals’ privacy and preventing misuse of personally identifying information (which argues for strict redactions and limited release). The bill tries to square that circle by mandating data collection and publication while shielding identifiers and leveraging funding to enforce compliance — a compromise that shifts questions about data quality, enforcement, and accountability into DOJ rulemaking and implementation.
The bill creates a federal reporting baseline but leaves key operational choices to DOJ rulemaking. That delegation is practical but also risky: decisions about definitions (what counts as deadly force), the exact form layout, electronic submission format, validation rules, and auditing authority will determine whether the data is reliable or becomes another inconsistent collection.
The statute requires consultation but does not specify funding or capacity-building assistance for state and local agencies; smaller departments with limited IT and records staff will likely struggle to meet the new reporting standard without federal support.
The privacy carve-outs create trade-offs. Excluding names and identifiers from public release protects individual privacy and reduces some risks to officers, but it also limits the ability of journalists, researchers, and the public to link incidents to court records, use-of-force reports, or body camera footage — which can be essential for accountability.
The FOIA exclusion tightens that limit. Finally, the enforcement mechanism — a 10 percent Byrne JAG reduction — is blunt: it creates a compliance incentive but may also push jurisdictions toward underreporting or contested 'substantial compliance' arguments if the agency lacks capacity rather than willful noncompliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.