Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police
Sen. Blackburn introduced a bill this week that would make it a crime to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would make it a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct an investigation.
Blackburn unveiled the "Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act" as masked Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are carrying out nationwide raids under the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts.
These raids have sparked public protests and pushback from local officials, including Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell, who has released records of local police interactions with ICE that include the names of ICE agents.
"Blue city mayors are doing everything they can to obstruct the Trump administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens," Blackburn said in a press release. "Just last week, Nashville Mayor O'Connell and his office doxxed federal law enforcement officers after the Trump administration worked with Tennessee Highway Patrol to arrest criminal illegal aliens."
However, press freedom groups say the bill raises serious First Amendment concerns.
"Public oversight and accountability relies on accurate news about law enforcement activity," Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press tells Reason. "The bill is dangerously overbroad and could be used to chill newsgathering and reporting that is clearly in the public interest."
Government employees, including law enforcement officers, generally don't have the presumption of privacy when it comes to information such as their names, salaries, and business conducted in public. Nevertheless, that hasn't stopped police and politicians from accusing people of "doxxing" officers for releasing public information.
Last month, ICE agents stormed a house in Irvine, California, executing a search warrant for a man accused of putting up flyers around Los Angeles with photos, names, and phone numbers of several ICE agents operating in the area. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment from Reason to state what law the man was accused of violating.
While the requirement in Blackburn's proposed law for an intent to obstruct an investigation would appear to provide some safeguard against abuse, Blackburn and other Republicans' comments make clear that their goal is to insulate ICE from transparency.
When asked by reporters on Friday if he was OK with ICE agents not identifying themselves, House Speaker Mike Johnson responded, "Why, so they can target them? So they can put names and faces online and dox them? That's what these activists do."
What Blackburn and Johnson's comments ignore is that an anonymous police force is an unaccountable police force.
For example, when New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) attempted to investigate the hundreds of complaints of police brutality and misconduct during the 2020 George Floyd protests, it was forced to close a third of the cases because it couldn't identify the officers involved. The CCRB noted that it faced "unprecedented challenges in investigating these complaints" due to officers covering their names and badge numbers, failing to turn on their body-worn cameras, and failing to file reports.
Of course, it's already functionally impossible to sue a federal law enforcement officer for a civil rights violation thanks to the Supreme Court's evisceration of the Bivens doctrine, but the normalization of anonymous federal agents will further immunize them from other forms of oversight such as media, inspector general, and congressional investigations.
There are already laws on the books to handle those who threaten federal officers or interfere in investigations. It's essential for government transparency, public trust, and the rule of law that the officials dictating and enforcing public policies can be identified by media outlets and citizens without fear of retribution.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
…and don’t forget to publish the names and photos of all our CIA operatives overseas.
What could possibly go wrong?
And also names and photos of local undercover police. This is not an article that should be published on reason.com, but it should be published by the CPUSA. Who is C.J. Ciaramella?
This garbage rag could only be improved if AI took it over.
I intend to buy it when Daddy Koch decides to move his money elsewhere and it isn’t worth anything.
Copsuckers are out in force today!
I was about to say the same thing about Marxist traitors.
Once upon a time Libertarians were wary of state sponsored terrorism. Times change, I guess.
Now we have the democrat party, which is a direct sponsor of domestic terror.
Trump is bringing back “Maryland dad”
I’m done. Fuck him. Can’t stand by a damned thing.
To be tried for human trafficking lol
Don’t care. Caved to a fucking loser judge. Did not tell him to go fuck off.
Had Trump done as you wanted we would have been in an immediate constitutional crisis.
A crisis caused by crooked Marxist judges.
Just get rid of the Marxists. Including the judges.
Pinochet had the right idea
That’s the judge’s fault, not Trump’s.
This remains false despite you being intentionally retarded on the subject.
The constitutional crisis is the judge over stepping jurisdiction while ignoring the actual law.
Hey dr mollytard, remember when you claimed DOGE accessing treasury was illegal and unconstitutional?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-doge-can-access-social-security-information
Tony doesn’t remember. He just says everything that Trump does is illegal. Even though he has no idea what the law says, nor does he care.
It was and still is illegal. They did it anyway. DOGE accessing IRS data is even more illegal.
Nope. SCOTUS says you’re wrong. You just don’t like it.
Seethe harder, pinko.
Sure wish I was on that jury.
And more!
The grand jury also heard allegations that Garcia trafficked firearms, narcotics, and solicited explicit images of a minor. He is even accused by a co-conspirator of being involved in the murder of a rival gang member’s mother.
This is actually pretty clever. After the democrats have gone in record, expending political capital they don’t have on this vicious illegal thug, to turn around and bring him back to convict him of multiple felonies.
I would use this to create a series of aggressive campaign ads against every congressional democrat that got in front of a camera to white knight for this piece of shit.
It’s the gift that will keep on giving.
Unless they judge and jury shop until the guy gets off.
Hopefully they prosecute him in Texas, but not Houston.
I find this little bit so typical of redundant laws.
I am pretty sure it’s already illegal to obstruct an investigation. Why this particular method should be extra punishy is beyond me. Why she thinks federal cops are so deserving of extra irresponsible immunity is not beyond me.
They want to protect the identities of ICE officers because gang like tren de argua have issued orders to their foot soldiers to kill ICE officers.
I even bolded the part which I also discussed. How did you miss it?
“with the intent to obstruct an investigation”
If the name disclosure alone is what matters, why the intent clause?
I wasn’t disputing you. I was just making a logical observation.
No, that is the narrative. You think the gangs can’t get that information easily and even quicker than just waiting around and going someone writes a blog with that info? That information is already public knowledge. Arrest reports, court documents, and more all have that and guess who has immediate access? The person charged and their lawyer.
You think they don’t just follow them and find them? You don’t realize they can FOIA the departments for the documents and get it?
Organized crime has never needed to wait around for a newspaper or nightly news show to get that information easily.
So why make it easier? And why make it easy for the democrat faithful to dox and SWAT them.
Does Reason ALWAYS have to parrot the talking points of the insane left?
They don’t have to, they want to.
It’s a calling for them.
When their sole source of information is liberal corporate media and liberal cocktail parties…
Since when is recognizing the first amendment’s protections a far left talking point? Hell the Left that isn’t far left doesn’t even defend freedom of speech.
You assume it’s parroted, and not pre-written for their publication.
This is why you can’t have chicks in charge of anything.
Fuckin’ bitches, right?
Are we doing Trump’s Secret Police!!1! again?
We have to revive “the secret policeman’s ball”. And “a secret policeman’s other ball”.
You’re calling them ‘secret police’ because the feds don’t want them doxxed and set up for assassination by Central American drug gangs??? Congratulations, this is probably the most misleading headline in the history of Reason magazine. What the fuck happened to you guys?
Sadly not even in the top 10. They’ve had 3 articles the last month calling it spending to not increase taxes.
Could find 10 worse ones by just searching on Sullum.
This is where the d elcrat party is anymore. I’m deadly serious when I say they have to go.
It’s time.
And how, exactly, is this going to stop those gang members from doing that? It isn’t. You do know that officers acting in the open like this have their names on the legal papers for anyone involved, and that they can simply have someone file a FOIA act to get anything not already public, right?
This isn’t aimed at those gangs or at stopping that activity. This is an encroachment on free speech and one that cannot survive strict scrutiny. It doesn’t keep that information from public access it criminalizes reporting.
Organized crime has never needed nor relied on news and media publications for information about law enforcement to target them or their families. Furthermore, SCOTUS has correctly ruled that recording and publishing the recordings of government officials including law enforcement is a constitutionally protected activity. The names of the people involved is content, and a law preventing that disclosure is therefore hostile to the first amendment by definition. Which is why strict scrutiny comes into play
Because this information is available through other means, including directly to people involved, the proposal is insufficient to achieve the desired ends while obviously infringing hard on the first amendment. Thus it fails scrutiny.
Consider this: are there people out there who would target anyone on the alleged Epstein list? Absolutely. And they wouldn’t even question if they were legitimately what is implied. So, since innocent people could be published on such a list and then targeted, how about banning that?
This proposal is fundamentally and unavoidably a violation of the first amendment. It is by definition not content neutral, fails strict scrutiny, and cannot prevent the alleged concerns.
As some say: Freedom is scary, deal with it.
It’s not. But hey, while you’re at it, why don’t you get an email address for these gangs and just send them the names and addresses of all the ICE officer involved in these raids? Doesn’t matter, right?
Are you kidding, the idea that the ICE agents would be set up for assassination if they were doxxed is ludicrous. Being able to identify a federal agent or any law enforcement is not doxxing anyone, citizens have the right to know who’s arresting them. Citizens also have the rights to know who’s arresting someone who isn’t a citizen, including illegal immigrants accused of being Latin American cartel members. Moreover, the threat to ICE agents is not equivalent to the threat American spies face at all. Also, the cartels don’t give a fuck about the people being arrested and deported enough to retaliate.
So if they’re not citizens, it’s all good, right?
How many ICE agents have been assassinated by gangs while not on the job, in the entire history of the country? (If they’re killed while on the job, then doxxing has nothing to do with it.)
Interestingly, the Democrats also wanted all federal police officers to be secret police in service of the Democratic Party.
They sure didn’t mind the FBI harassing actual Americans who dared attend school board meetings with the wrong politics.
Or raiding elderly an unarmed Roger Stone’s home when they arrested him.
Looking forward to Sister Night, Panda, and the rest of the Tulsa cops.
“Public oversight and accountability relies on accurate news about law enforcement activity,”
One might argue the same is true about journalistic activity.
What’s your home address, CJ? Want me to share it? Because I can.
Are you for or against doxxing?
That’s hardly “secret police”
When children appear in public photos , their faces are covered or altered. No one publishes the names of women attacked.
Tell me who you know what will want to take the job of federal police knowing that when Abrego’s Tren de Aragua mates find out it was YOU ……Death to one and all
This article doesn’t address the rights of the officers to actual protection from the impacts of doxing through the power of social media. Officers should have to follow procedures such as turning on body cameras, but their identity could be protected by having multiple QR codes on their vests that had to go through a legal process to identify a specific officer.
Did doxxing and assassination of police involved in prosecuting gangs happen before recent ICE activities? Nope. So the argument that this legislation is necessary is prima facie bullshit.
But the good little cultists approve, like the authoritarian POSs we know them to be,