S-2457-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4701-4703)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would authorize dedicated domestic terrorism units within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to monitor, investigate, and prosecute domestic terrorism activity. It would require those agencies to submit joint public reports to Congress every six months detailing domestic terrorism incidents, investigations, arrests, and convictions — with specific tracking of White supremacist and neo-Nazi activity. The bill would also establish an interagency task force to examine White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of federal law enforcement and the military, require anti-bias training for all office employees, and mandate that an FBI special agent or hate crimes liaison be assigned to every FBI field office. All offices and reporting requirements would sunset after 10 years.
Who benefits
Communities that have experienced domestic terrorism attacks, particularly those targeted by racially or ideologically motivated violence. Victims and families affected by hate crimes with a terrorism nexus. State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that would receive improved training and resources. Federal prosecutors who would gain dedicated support for domestic terrorism cases. Civil rights organizations that have advocated for greater federal attention to White supremacist violence. Researchers and journalists who would gain access to detailed, publicly released federal data on domestic terrorism trends.
Who is hurt
Individuals and organizations that may be subjected to expanded federal monitoring and investigation, including those whose activities fall near the legal boundary between protected political speech and domestic terrorism. Law enforcement and military personnel who could face heightened scrutiny under the infiltration task force, including those falsely flagged. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of new offices, staffing, training programs, and biannual reporting. Agencies that would face new administrative and reporting burdens. Civil liberties advocates concerned that expanded surveillance infrastructure could be repurposed or misused beyond its stated scope.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that domestic terrorism — particularly White supremacist violence — has been the leading source of lethal domestic terrorist attacks in recent years, citing FBI and DHS threat assessments that have consistently ranked it as the most lethal ideological threat. They contend that the federal government currently lacks a dedicated, coordinated institutional structure to match the one that exists for international terrorism, and that this gap has led to inconsistent investigation and prosecution. The bill's built-in civil liberties safeguards — including dedicated compliance officers, anti-bias training, a First Amendment rule of construction, and a 10-year sunset — are argued to provide meaningful checks against overreach.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's explicit focus on White supremacist and neo-Nazi threats — named repeatedly throughout the reporting and training requirements — risks creating a politically directed surveillance apparatus that could be selectively applied based on ideology rather than conduct. They contend that existing federal statutes and agencies already have authority to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism, and that creating new bureaucratic layers duplicates capacity without addressing the underlying legal gap: unlike international terrorism, there is no standalone federal domestic terrorism criminal statute, meaning new offices would still prosecute under existing charges. Critics also warn that expanded monitoring infrastructure, once built, is historically difficult to constrain and may chill constitutionally protected political activity.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment is the central constitutional concern: the bill explicitly targets monitoring of ideological movements, and Section 7 includes a rule of construction preserving First Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment is also relevant — Carpenter v. United States (2018) established that comprehensive digital surveillance requires a warrant, and expanded monitoring offices could generate new questions about the scope of permissible intelligence collection on domestic actors without criminal predicate.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically DHS, DOJ, and the FBI — gains new institutional capacity and resources; Congress checks this authority through mandatory biannual public reporting, required submission of all training materials, committee oversight across six congressional committees, and a 10-year sunset on all authorized offices.
Historical precedent
Earlier versions of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act were introduced in multiple prior Congresses (including the 116th and 117th) and passed the House in 2022 but did not receive a Senate floor vote; the bill's structure and provisions are substantially similar to those prior versions.