The Protect and Serve Act of 2025 adds a new Section 120 to Chapter 7 of Title 18, making it a federal crime to willfully cause serious bodily injury to a person because they are a law enforcement officer. The statute sets a baseline penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for serious bodily injury and raises penalties to terms of years or life where death, kidnapping (or attempted kidnapping), or attempted killing occurs.
Federal jurisdiction under the new offense attaches through four distinct hooks: interstate travel or use of commerce channels, use of a weapon that traveled in interstate commerce, occurrence on federal property or interference with federal actors, and where the victim is a federal law enforcement officer. Before the United States may prosecute, the Attorney General (or a designee) must certify in writing that either the state requested federal assumption of jurisdiction or that a federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice, with several enumerated factors the AG must consider.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds 18 U.S.C. §120 to criminalize willful serious bodily injury inflicted because of a person's status as a law enforcement officer and prescribes enhanced penalties when death, kidnapping, or attempted killing occurs. The statute creates four alternative jurisdictional bases that bring otherwise local conduct into federal reach.
Who It Affects
DOJ and U.S. Attorneys (who must decide whether to assume prosecution), state and local law enforcement and prosecutors (whose cases could be taken over), defense attorneys facing new federal charges, and law enforcement officers who are victims of targeted attacks.
Why It Matters
This establishes a discrete federal vehicle to prosecute targeted attacks on officers, clarifies factors the Attorney General must weigh before stepping in, and expands the scenarios in which federal resources and penalties can be applied to traditionally state-level violent crimes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a standalone federal offense aimed at attacks motivated by the victim’s status as a law enforcement officer. To trigger the statute, the perpetrator must act willfully and cause ‘serious bodily injury,’ and the harmful conduct must be motivated by the person’s role as an officer rather than by an unrelated motive.
For the most severe outcomes—death, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or an attempted killing—the bill elevates the punishment to any term of years or life.
Federal jurisdiction is not automatic for every assault on an officer; the statute lists four alternative jurisdictional triggers. A federal case is possible if the defendant or victim crossed state lines or used an interstate commerce channel in connection with the offense, if the defendant used a weapon that previously traveled in interstate commerce, if the offense occurred on federal property or interfered with federal actors, or if the victim was a federal law enforcement officer.
The text therefore pulls together traditional interstate-commerce and federal-actor jurisdictional hooks into one offense tailored to targeted attacks on officers.A procedural gatekeeper sits between potential federal prosecutions and courtroom: the Attorney General (or a designee) must certify in writing before the United States may proceed, except the statute preserves investigative authority for federal agents and grand juries. The certification must state that either the state asked the federal government to assume jurisdiction or that a federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice; the bill then lists factors the AG should consider, including the verdict or sentence under state charges, planning and premeditation, intended outcome, disregard for human life, and public-safety benefits of federal involvement.Finally, the bill defines key terms to set scope. ‘Law enforcement officer’ covers government employees authorized to prevent, detect, investigate crime or to detain or incarcerate persons for criminal violations—language that reaches patrol officers, detectives, corrections officers, and other authorized agents of public agencies.
The measure also adds a clerical amendment to the chapter table of sections to reflect the new provision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new 18 U.S.C. §120 makes it a federal crime to willfully cause serious bodily injury to someone because they are a law enforcement officer.
The baseline penalty for that offense is up to 10 years’ imprisonment; if death, kidnapping (or attempted kidnapping), or an attempted killing occurs, the statute authorizes any term of years or life.
Federal jurisdiction attaches under four alternative hooks: interstate travel/use of commerce, use of a weapon that traveled in interstate commerce, occurrence on federal property or interference with federal actors, or when the victim is a federal law enforcement officer.
The Attorney General (or a designee) must provide a written certification before the United States may prosecute, stating that the State requested federal assumption or that federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice.
The certification must consider five enumerated factors, including any state verdict or sentence, extent of planning and premeditation, intended outcome, disregard for human life (including collateral victims), and the public-safety benefit of federal prosecution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Protect and Serve Act of 2025
This single-line provision names the measure. It has no operative effect on substance but establishes how the statute should be cited in legal references and drafting, which matters for practitioners tracking authorities.
Creates a federal offense for willful, status-motivated serious bodily injury and sets penalty tiers
Subsection (a) of the added §120 sets out the core criminal element: the defendant must willfully cause serious bodily injury to a person because of that person’s status as a law enforcement officer (or attempt to do so). The provision separates sentencing tiers: up to 10 years for the baseline offense and exposure to any term of years or life where the offense results in death or involves kidnapping or attempted killing. Practically, the text imports the legal concepts of intent (willfulness) and causation into a status-motivated offense and ties the most severe penalties to outcomes or related felonious conduct.
Four alternative jurisdictional hooks that bring local conduct into federal court
Subsection (b) lists the circumstances that permit federal prosecution: (1) travel across a State line or use of interstate/foreign commerce channels by defendant or victim in connection with the conduct; (2) use of a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive/incendiary device, or other weapon that traveled in interstate commerce; (3) commission on federal property or interference with federal actors; and (4) where the victim is a federal law-enforcement officer. Each clause mirrors established federal jurisdictional predicates, but placing them together for a status-motivated assault creates multiple routes for federal intervention depending on factual patterns such as cross-border movement or the weapon’s provenance.
Written AG certification required before the United States may prosecute
Subsection (c) imposes a procedural prerequisite: DOJ cannot initiate a prosecution under §120 unless the Attorney General or a designee certifies in writing that the State requested federal assumption of jurisdiction or that federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. The statute directs the AG to weigh particular factors—state verdict/sentence, premeditation, intended outcome, disregard for human life, and public-safety benefits. The text preserves investigative powers (rule of construction) but hands the AG a clear, documentable gatekeeping role intended to coordinate federal-state interests.
Definitions and technical change to chapter table
Subsection (d) defines ‘law enforcement officer’ to include government employees authorized to engage in or supervise crime prevention, detection, investigation, detention, or incarceration, and clarifies ‘State’ to include U.S. states, D.C., and territories. The bill also updates the chapter’s table of sections to add §120. The definitional language is broad enough to capture corrections officers and supervisory investigative personnel, which matters when assessing whether a given victim’s status brings the case within the statute.
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
- Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys — gain a targeted federal statute and a written certification framework to justify assumption of cases that involve interstate facts, federal actors, or particularly egregious, premeditated attacks.
- Federal law enforcement officers — obtain an explicit federal jurisdictional pathway when they are victims, reducing dependency on state charging decisions in those instances.
- Local law enforcement agencies — when state resources are thin or cases cross jurisdictions, federal involvement can bring additional investigative resources and sentencing options for severe, targeted attacks.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local prosecutors — may see high-profile or complex cases assumed by DOJ, complicating local charging strategies and potentially duplicating investigatory effort if coordination lapses.
- Defense counsel and indigent defense systems — will face more federal prosecutions with higher stakes and potentially longer sentences, increasing caseloads and resource needs in federal courts.
- Department of Justice — must allocate review capacity and litigation resources to apply the written-certification mechanism and litigate more serious interstate or federal-property cases, potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: making it easier for the federal government to step in and secure uniform, heavy penalties for targeted attacks on officers versus preserving state primacy over violent crime and guarding against subjective federal selection of cases; the mechanism that achieves national protection also concentrates discretion in DOJ and may shift burdens and political accountability away from local systems.
The statute threads established federal jurisdictional predicates into a single targeted-offense vehicle, but that design creates implementation wrinkles. The ‘because of that person’s status as a law enforcement officer’ mens rea raises questions about proof: prosecutors will need admissible evidence of motive or targeted animus rather than general hostility or circumstances that merely involved an officer.
That evidentiary burden intersects with the AG certification step, which invites DOJ to make discretionary calls about substantial justice that may be politically and legally sensitive.
The bill also risks overlapping with existing federal offenses (e.g., assaults on federal officers, hate-crime statutes, weapons offenses) and with state statutes addressing assaults, attempted murder, or kidnapping. Overlap can be efficient if it produces coordinated prosecutions, but it can also produce confusion over primary jurisdiction, double-investigation, and prosecutorial forum shopping.
Finally, the certification factors are directional rather than prescriptive; they require the AG to consider enumerated items but do not prioritize or weight them, leaving room for inconsistent application from one U.S. Attorney’s Office or administration to another.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.