Protecting law enforcement from doxxing: Balancing officer safety and constitutional oversight

By Sheriff (Ret) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA

Doxxing — publicly disclosing personal identifying information with malicious intent — is not an exercise of free speech but a deliberate tactic to intimidate, harass and endanger individuals. The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act (S.1952) addresses a critical vulnerability exposed when the Nashville mayor’s office published the names of federal investigators involved in a joint ICE–Tennessee Highway Patrol operation. By criminalizing the intentional release of a federal officer’s name to obstruct criminal or immigration enforcement — and prescribing fines and up to five years’ imprisonment — the Act reaffirms that doxing is a predatory act rather than protected expression.

This brief examines the legal context, verified instances of doxxing, associated risks to officer safety and community trust, policy implications and actionable recommendations to fortify enforcement while safeguarding constitutional oversight.

| RELATED: The case for removing last names from police uniforms

Legislative background

On June 4, 2025, Senator Marsha Blackburn introduced S.1952 in the 119th Congress to amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code, prohibiting the willful dissemination of a federal law enforcement officer’s name when intended to impede official duties. The bill responds to the public release of ICE and DHS agents’ identities by Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s office following “Operation Southern Shield,” an ICE–THP joint operation that removed violent offenders, including MS‑13 and Tren de Aragua affiliates. Existing state anti‑doxxing statutes vary widely and do not uniformly protect federal officers; S.1952 establishes a consistent federal standard to close enforcement gaps.

Defining doxxing as a nefarious act

Doxxing involves the non‑consensual publication of private or identifying information — such as full names, home addresses, or operational assignments — intended to facilitate harm, whether through direct violence, intimidation, or psychological distress. Unlike protected speech that informs public discourse or oversight, doxxing weaponizes personal data to coerce fear and obstruct justice, and must be narrowly targeted to punish bad‑faith disclosures rather than legitimate journalistic or academic activities.

Verified case studies of law enforcement officer doxxing

• Nashville ICE Operation (May 2025): ICE and Tennessee Highway Patrol’s “Operation Southern Shield” led to 196 arrests, including Iraqi national Jafaf Al‑Raash (rape) and Salvadoran national Inmar Penado‑Membreno (cocaine distribution). Immediately afterward, Nashville’s mayoral office released agents’ names and roles — a move condemned as endangering officers by exposing them to gangs like MS‑13.
• MS‑13 retaliation patterns: DOJ and Congressional Research Service reports highlight MS‑13’s history of targeting law enforcement after identity leaks, including orchestrated ambushes and intimidation campaigns following a 2018 crackdown in El Salvador.
• Tren de Aragua threats: In May 2025, DOJ indicted 27 Tren de Aragua members on racketeering, narcotics and sex‑trafficking charges. Unsealed filings reveal explicit threats to kill or harm perceived adversaries, demonstrating the lethal risk of exposed officer identities.
• Portland Federal Protective Service doxxing (August 2020): During the 2020 protests in Portland, activists circulated names, photos and duty assignments of Federal Protective Service officers on social media. DHS issued a security bulletin warning that the disclosures placed officers at heightened risk of targeted violence and harassment.
• Seattle ICE Roster Exposure (July 2018): An ACLU FOIA lawsuit settlement inadvertently led to public release of an internal ICE roster — including agents’ names, badge numbers and home addresses — triggering a DOJ privacy and policy review and prompting litigation over the improper disclosure.

Operational and safety risks

There are numerous safety and security considerations as a result of doxxing:

• Ambush and surveillance: Anonymity underpins covert operations; disclosed identities enable targeted surveillance, home invasions, and violent reprisals against officers and informants.
• Psychological impact: Officers forced to fear for their personal safety and that of their families suffer chronic stress and anxiety, potentially leading to burnout or reluctance to undertake sensitive operations.
• Deterrent to interagency collaboration: Public undermining of federal operations may cause state and local partners to hesitate in cooperating with ICE or DHS, fearing political reprisals or legal action.
• Digital stalking and cyber harassment: Publicly available personal data can facilitate sustained online harassment campaigns, phishing, or hacking attempts against officers, leveraging doxxed information for further cyber exploitation.
• Family and social vulnerability: Exposed family member details increase risks to spouses, children, and other associates, creating potential pressure points or leverage for criminal actors, thus expanding the threat beyond the officer.
• Intelligence source compromise: Doxxing can inadvertently reveal connections to confidential informants or undercover operatives, jeopardizing ongoing investigations and the safety of third-party collaborators.
• Recruitment and retention impact: Awareness of personal-safety vulnerabilities may deter prospective recruits and contribute to higher attrition rates among current personnel, undermining law enforcement capacity over time.
• Legal and liability risks: Agencies may face civil litigation or federal oversight actions if inadequate safeguards lead to officer endangerment, resulting in reputational damage and financial liabilities.

Community trust and constitutional balance

While transparency and accountability are core democratic values, S.1952 is expressly limited to punishing malicious disclosures intended to obstruct enforcement, not to stifle legitimate critique or oversight. Requiring proof of intent to impede official duties aligns the statute with First Amendment jurisprudence and distinguishes punishable misconduct from protected speech.

From a constitutional law standpoint, criminal statutes must articulate clear mens rea elements to withstand First and Fifth Amendment scrutiny. Without explicit requirements, S.1952 could:

• Encompass unintentional disclosures: A person might inadvertently publish an officer’s name (e.g., in public protest materials or academic analysis) without any conscious aim to interfere with enforcement. Without a mens rea clause — such as requiring the defendant to act ‘‘knowingly’’ or ‘‘recklessly’’ with respect to the obstructive outcome — courts could interpret the statute to punish accidental conduct, raising due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
• Chill legitimate expression: If individuals fear prosecution for sharing publicly available information absent malicious intent, they may self-censor important speech about government activity. The First Amendment forbids penalizing speech that lacks the requisite criminal intent; thus, the statute should require proof that the actor ‘‘knowingly’’ intended to impair an official investigation or ‘‘recklessly disregarded’’ the high probability of such obstruction.

Recommendations for legislative refinement

1. Precise definitions: Define “doxxing” and “intent to obstruct” with clear mens rea requirements, ensuring application only to disclosures made recklessly or knowingly with respect to obstruction with exemptions bona fide disclosures conducted without obstructive intent and for public‑interest purposes.
2. Comprehensive training: Direct DOJ and DHS to develop standardized training modules for federal, state, and local agencies on safeguarding personal data while fulfilling transparency obligations.
3. Notification and protection protocols: Mandate prompt federal notifications to jurisdictions when officers’ identities are compromised, with guidelines on protective measures (e.g., address redaction, secure data repositories).
4. Periodic review and oversight: Incorporate sunset clauses and require GAO or Inspector General assessments every three years to monitor enforcement outcomes, measure impacts on officer safety, and detect any chilling effects on legitimate oversight.

Implementation considerations

Effective enforcement demands dedicated DOJ prosecutorial units, increased training budgets, secure digital infrastructure for officer records, and interagency liaison positions. Federal grant programs should support state and local adoption of best practices in data protection and officer privacy.

Implications and consequences

From an applied criminology and law enforcement perspective viewing doxxing as a punishable offense rather than protected speech is vital for maintaining law enforcement efficacy in an era of digital transparency. By classifying doxxing as an injurious act, S.1952 safeguards officers from targeted attacks while preserving democratic checks through narrowly drafted exceptions and oversight measures, ensuring that operational security and civil liberties coexist harmoniously.

Civil recourse and litigation

Law enforcement officers subjected to doxxing may pursue civil remedies under existing privacy, tort, and civil rights statutes. Key elements to establish a viable claim include:

1. Publication of private information: Demonstrating that the defendant intentionally published non‑public personal data (e.g., home address, family details) to a third party.
2. Identifiability: Showing a reasonable person could identify the officer from the disclosed information.
3. Intent or recklessness: Proving the defendant acted with malice, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the foreseeable harm to the officer’s safety and career.
4. Actual harm: Documenting specific damages — such as threats received, psychological injury, reputational harm, or costs of protective measures.
5. Absence of consent or privilege: Establishing that no legal privilege or public‑interest exception justified the disclosure.

Remedies may include compensatory damages for emotional distress and security expenses, punitive damages to deter future misconduct, and injunctive relief prohibiting further dissemination. Officers can invoke causes of action under state privacy torts (public disclosure of private facts), federal civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of rights under color of law), and, where applicable, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act or similar statutes protecting personal data.

Additionally, law enforcement agencies and officers’ associations may have standing to sue through their in‑house legal departments or retained counsel. Because doxxing also inflicts reputational and operational harm on the department and undermines an association’s collective bargaining power, such institutional plaintiffs can seek declaratory judgments, injunctive relief and damages to restore data security and protect organizational interests.

Conclusion

The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act targets a tangible, evolving threat: the weaponization of personal data to obstruct justice and imperil officers. By framing doxing as a malicious tactic, embedding safeguards for legitimate oversight, and mandating precise definitions, this legislation advances public safety, strengthens trust in law enforcement and reaffirms constitutional principles.

References

• Congressional Research Service. (2024). MS‑13 and U.S. Security: Oversight Issues.
• Department of Homeland Security. (2025, May). Operation Southern Shield: Nashville Arrests Report.
• Department of Homeland Security. (2025, July 10). ICE Takes Down High‑ranking MS‑13 Leaders Wanted for Murder.
• Department of Justice. (2025, May). 27 Members or Associates of Tren de Aragua Charged with Racketeering, Narcotics, Sex Trafficking.
• Fordham Law Review. (2017). MacAllister, E. The Doxing Dilemma.
• MacAllister, E. (2017). The Doxing Dilemma. Fordham Law Review, 85(2).
• Tennessee Lookout. (2025). Wadhwani, A. Mayor O’Connell’s Disclosure of ICE Agents Draws Fire.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2026). Protections for Law Enforcement Personnel: Enforcement and Oversight Report.
• Congress.gov. (2025). S.1952 – Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act.
• Blackburn, M. (2025). Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, S.1952, 119th Cong.

About the author

Sheriff (Ret.) Currie Myers, PhD, MBA, is an applied criminologist and criminal justice ethicist. He is a former Johnson County, Kansas sheriff, KBI special agent, DEA Task Force Agent and State Trooper.

| READ MORE FROM SHERIFF MYERS: How unregulated vapes are the cartels’ newest weapon — and what law enforcement can do