H.R.31 inserts a new deportability ground into the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize removal of any noncitizen convicted of, or who admits to committing, an offense that involves assaulting a law‑enforcement officer. The bill specifies three contextual triggers for the ground—while the officer was performing official duties, because of those duties, or because of the officer’s status—and leaves the definition of “assault” to the criminal law of the place where the act occurred.
The measure also expands the statutory notion of “law‑enforcement officer” to include persons authorized to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes as well as firefighters and other first responders, and it directs the Department of Homeland Security to publish an annual count of removals under the new provision. For compliance officers, defense counsel, and agency planners this creates a new immigration consequence that can attach to local criminal cases and admissions, with operational and due‑process implications for federal enforcement and local cooperation with police and emergency services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2) by adding a new subparagraph creating deportability for aliens convicted of, or admitting to, offenses involving assault of a law‑enforcement officer. It specifies three factual circumstances that trigger the ground and instructs DHS to report annually on removals under that subsection.
Who It Affects
Noncitizens of all statuses—immigrants in removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents, and nonimmigrants—could face removal under the new ground; federal enforcement agencies and immigration courts will implement and adjudicate the new category; local prosecutors and defense counsel will see effects in case handling and plea bargaining.
Why It Matters
This creates a broadly applicable immigration sanction tied directly to local criminal conduct and admissions, potentially converting routine pleas or statements into removal exposure. It also places an explicit reporting obligation on DHS that will produce a new public dataset about enforcement under this specific ground.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.31 creates a discrete deportation ground by adding a new subparagraph to the INA’s list of removable offenses. Under the bill, an immigration judge or DHS can rely on either a criminal conviction or an alien’s admission that they committed acts that establish the essential elements of an assault offense to find removability.
The bill does not amend criminal law; instead it borrows the local criminal definition of “assault,” so whether a given act qualifies will turn on state or federal statute and how courts there have characterized the offense.
The new ground applies when the assault occurs under any one of three factual circumstances: while the person assaulted was performing official duties, because of the person’s performance of duties, or because of the person’s status as a law‑enforcement officer. The statutory definition of “law‑enforcement officer” is broader than some current usages—it covers persons authorized to prevent, investigate, apprehend, or prosecute crime and expressly includes firefighters and “other first responders.” That expansion can bring nontraditional responders into immigration consequences arising from local incidents.Practically, the bill builds an immigration hook that can attach to convictions, guilty pleas, and admissions made during criminal cases, interviews, or immigration encounters.
The wording—covering admissions of conduct that constitute the essential elements of the offense—raises predictable questions about what counts as an admission, who may record it, and how immigration adjudicators will treat plea colloquies, negotiated dispositions, or administrative statements. The bill does not change other INA provisions governing discretionary relief, waivers, or mandatory detention; it simply establishes removability under the new subparagraph and requires DHS to publish an annual tally of removals carried out under that text.On the administrative side, DHS must produce a public, annual report listing the number of aliens removed under the new ground.
The statute does not require demographic breakdowns, contextual facts about the offenses, or reporting on prosecutorial or adjudicative outcomes; it mandates only a numerical count. That limited reporting will still create a new, trackable metric but leaves many implementation details—how DHS will identify qualifying cases in its datasets, how EOIR and DHS will coordinate, and whether the department will change charging or detention priorities—to agency practice and guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subparagraph (G) to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2), creating deportability for assaulting a law‑enforcement officer.
Deportability triggers on either a criminal conviction or an alien’s admission that they committed acts constituting the essential elements of the assault offense.
The ground applies if the officer was assaulted while performing official duties, because of performance of duties, or because of the officer’s status.
The term “assault” is taken from the criminal law of the jurisdiction where the act occurred, so qualifying conduct will vary by state or federal statute and case law.
The statutory definition of “law‑enforcement officer” explicitly includes firefighters and other first responders in addition to traditional police and prosecutors, and DHS must publish an annual count of removals under this provision.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s public name: the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2025 (POLICE Act of 2025). This is purely stylistic and does not affect substantive implementation, but it signals legislative intent to prioritize immigration removal in cases involving assaults on covered personnel.
New deportability ground for assault of a law‑enforcement officer
Adds subparagraph (G) to the INA’s removable‑alien list. The provision authorizes removal based on (A) a conviction; (B) an admission that the alien committed the offense; or (C) an admission of acts that meet the offense’s essential elements. It sets a three‑part factual test for when an assault qualifies and instructs adjudicators to look to the criminal law of the place of occurrence to define “assault.” The practical effect is that admissions and plea colloquies in criminal cases become potential immigration evidence; the statutory text does not specify standards of proof in removal proceedings or whether certain admissions are presumptively reliable, leaving those determinations to existing immigration rules and EOIR practice.
Annual DHS report on removals under the new ground
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to post a public report each year listing the number of aliens deported under the new subparagraph. The requirement is limited to a numeric count for the prior year; it does not direct DHS to include demographic data, prosecutorial context, or citations to the underlying criminal records. Agencies will therefore need to design internal tracking mechanisms to identify which removals should be attributed to the new statutory ground.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration 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
- Federal immigration enforcement agencies (DHS, ICE, DOJ immigration counsel): the statute supplies an explicit, easily invoked statutory ground for removal tied to assaults on covered personnel, giving prosecutors and removal officers a clear basis to seek and justify deportation.
- State and local law‑enforcement officers and agencies: the law creates an immigration consequence specifically tied to assaults on officers and first responders, which proponents can use as a deterrent or bargaining tool in criminal cases.
- Members of Congress and oversight actors: the mandated annual count gives lawmakers and committees a new data point to assess enforcement of this particular removal ground.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noncitizens of all statuses (including lawful permanent residents and long‑term nonimmigrants): because the statute applies to “any alien,” many people with deep ties to the U.S. could face removal following convictions or admissions that qualify under local assault laws.
- Immigration courts, DHS case managers, and prosecutors: the new ground will increase casework—identifying qualifying offenses, litigating admissions, and processing removal cases—without an appropriation in the text, creating likely resource pressures.
- Defense attorneys, public defenders, and immigrant legal services providers: they will need to adjust advice about pleas and admissions and expand representation in immigration consequences arising from criminal cases, increasing demand on legal services.
- Local public‑safety and public‑health efforts: inclusion of firefighters and first responders and the risk of deportation after a local incident may chill cooperation by immigrant communities with emergency services and reduce willingness of some immigrants to call for help.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a straightforward legislative objective—strengthening protections against assaults on officers by attaching immigration consequences—against competing values of consistent legal definitions, procedural fairness, and community trust: protecting public‑safety personnel through immigration removal risks uneven application across jurisdictions and may deter cooperation with emergency responders, while relying on admissions and criminal dispositions to trigger deportation raises difficult due‑process and evidentiary trade‑offs.
The bill creates several operational and legal tensions. First, its reliance on convictions and admissions as alternate bases for deportability raises evidentiary and due‑process questions.
Immigration proceedings already treat criminal convictions differently from admissions; this statute’s inclusion of “admissions of acts constituting the essential elements” invites disputes about what counts as an admission, whether plea colloquies are dispositive, and how to protect statements taken during collateral immigration interviews. Second, delegating the definition of “assault” to the jurisdiction where the act occurred produces uneven application: the same conduct could be removable in one State but not in another, complicating national enforcement and statistical comparisons.
Third, the statute’s expansive definition of “law‑enforcement officer”—covering investigators, prosecutors, and expressly firefighters and other first responders—may sweep in individuals not commonly thought of as traditional police, exposing a broader class of aliens to removal based on incidents that occurred in non‑law‑enforcement contexts (for example, disputes with emergency medical personnel). Finally, the reporting requirement is narrowly framed as an annual numeric count; while that will reveal enforcement volume, it will not by itself answer downstream questions policy makers and practitioners will want to know, such as the severity of underlying offenses, detention and custody outcomes, or how many cases originated from plea deals versus contested trials.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.