SB.28 Thin Blue Line Act of 2025

[Brink]

IN THE 119th CONGRESS

Senator DUPLANTIS of Louisiana, for himself, with thanks to Mr. BUCHANAN of Florida, introduce the following legislation,

A BILL,

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional aggravating factors for the imposition of the death penalty based on the status of the victim.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Thin Blue Line Act of 2025” .

SEC. 2. Aggravating factors for death penalty.

Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:

“(17) KILLING OR TARGETING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.—

“(A) The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the circumstance described in subparagraph (B), a person who is authorized by law—

“(i) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, investigation, or prosecution, or the incarceration of any person for any criminal violation of law;

“(ii) to apprehend, arrest, or prosecute an individual for any criminal violation of law; or

“(iii) to be a firefighter or other first responder.

“(B) The circumstance referred to in subparagraph (A) is that the person was killed or targeted—

“(i) while he or she was engaged in the performance of his or her official duties;

“(ii) because of the performance of his or her official duties; or

“(iii) because of his or her status as a public official or employee.”.

PES: This bill expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in death penalty determinations to also include killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.

[Brink]

The Senate shall come to order to debate this legislation until cloture is invoked.

[Clara Blackwell]

Mr. President,

I rise today to speak on the Thin Blue Line Act, and I want to begin with an image - one that has stayed with me for over two decades.

It was dawn in Kosovo, 1999. I was adjusting my camera lens when a local police officer approached me. He showed me a photo of his family, tucked carefully in his wallet. "This is why I do this work," he told me in broken English. "To make their world safer." Hours later, that same officer was killed by a sniper - targeted simply for wearing his uniform, for choosing to stand between chaos and order.

I've spent years documenting how societies grapple with violence. From Sierra Leone to Afghanistan, I've seen how the thin line between civilization and disorder is often held by those who wear a uniform and accept the burden of protecting others. This experience compels me to engage deeply with any legislation that addresses violence against law enforcement.

But my years in Congress have also taught me that our most solemn moral obligations demand our most careful deliberation. The death penalty is the ultimate expression of state power - irreversible, final, absolute. And while the impulse to protect those who protect us is profound and right, we must ask: Will this legislation make our officers safer? Will it prevent the next tragedy? Or are we confusing retribution with prevention?

The data from states with similar provisions suggests that expanded death penalty provisions do not demonstrably reduce attacks on law enforcement. What does work - what I've seen work in Virginia - is investing in officer training, community policing, and the kind of mental health resources that help identify threats before they become tragedies.

I've sat with too many families - both in war zones and here at home - who have lost loved ones to violence. Their pain doesn't distinguish between uniforms or circumstances. It's a void that no punishment, even the ultimate one, can fill.

To my colleagues who support this bill out of a genuine desire to protect our first responders: I share your goal. But I believe we honor their sacrifice not by expanding the reach of death, but by redoubling our commitment to the principles they protect - justice, due process, and the rule of law.

Therefore, I cannot support this legislation as written. Instead, I urge this body to channel our shared commitment to protecting law enforcement into measures proven to enhance officer safety and prevent these tragic losses in the first place.

The officer I met in Kosovo couldn't be saved by any punishment after the fact. But his memory, and the memory of every officer we've lost, demands that we do more than react - we must prevent. That's the true thin blue line we must strengthen.

I yield the floor.

[Dogslife]

Madam President,

I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. As a firefighter and a first responder, I know firsthand the sacrifices my colleagues and I make every day. I have worked alongside the best individuals our country can produce. We put our lives on the line to protect our communities. But my experiences have also taught me that justice cannot be achieved through state-sanctioned killing.

This bill seeks to expand the use of the death penalty to those who kill or target first responders. On the surface, this might seem like an effort to honor and protect people like me and our brave law enforcement officers. But let me be clear: this bill does not protect us. It perpetuates a broken system of retribution that devalues human life and undermines the principles of justice we should all hold dear.

I have seen death up close. I have seen hundreds of acres of burnt forests, held the hands of those who have lost everything, and comforted families in their darkest hours. I’ve dedicated my life to preserving life, not ending it. And I know that no amount of vengeance will bring back a loved one. No execution will undo the pain of loss.

The death penalty is not justice. It is a failure of the state to uphold the sanctity of life. It is applied unevenly, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, and is rife with error. For every ten people executed in this country, one has been exonerated—a horrifying margin of error when the stakes are life and death. One in ten. 

Moreover, expanding the death penalty does nothing to deter violence against first responders. If we truly want to protect those who serve, we should invest in their safety: better training, mental health support, and adequate resources. This bill does none of that. Instead, it clings to the misguided notion that the state’s power to kill can somehow make us safer.

As a firefighter, a retired guardsman, and a man of God, I know what it means to fight for life. I know the value of every single soul, no matter who they are or what they have done. The state should not have the right to extinguish that life. To give the government the power to kill is to give it the power to make irreversible or even intentional mistakes.

This bill uses people like me—firefighters, law enforcement officers, first responders—as symbols to justify an expansion of state violence. I reject that. I stand here today to say that my life is not a justification for more killing.

The death penalty is not just a policy failure—it is a moral failure. We cannot call ourselves a just society if we allow the state to take lives in our name. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead work toward a justice system that honors the dignity of all human beings and seeks true accountability, not vengeance.

Thank you.

I yield.

[DMH]

Madam President,

Our law enforcement and first responders are bright lights within every community across this country. Their sacrifice and effort keeps our communities safe from those who seek to prey upon the innocent. I am an emphatic supporter of this legislation as its primary sponsor because this legislation is not simply some high-brow symbolic gesture but a concrete policy decision that makes clear what awaits those who leave families without a mother, a father, a child, an uncle or aunt, a grandparent, etc. who put on their badge or uniform every day to serve the communities they love because they were killed by an assailant.

Talk of “devaluing life” ignores that the assailants themselves who have destroyed families by their craven actions didn’t value the life of those they took. I express no remorse or sympathy for those who can take a life but demand that their own life be held to a higher standard. First responders and their families deserve justice and a system that makes clear that those who would commit such insidious acts will face the music and this bill does just that.

I motion for cloture.

I yield.

[Abrams]

Madam President,

I second the motion.

I yield.

[Avner]

Madam President,

While I support this bill, I find it odd that the majority is ramming it through for cloture when those who oppose it should be able to state their opposition and offer amendments, if any. Debate on such a bill should flourish, not be silenced. I will oppose cloture, not for any opposition to this bill but to rush the legislative process.

I yield.

[Brink]

7 hours ago, DMH said:

Madam President,

Our law enforcement and first responders are bright lights within every community across this country. Their sacrifice and effort keeps our communities safe from those who seek to prey upon the innocent. I am an emphatic supporter of this legislation as its primary sponsor because this legislation is not simply some high-brow symbolic gesture but a concrete policy decision that makes clear what awaits those who leave families without a mother, a father, a child, an uncle or aunt, a grandparent, etc. who put on their badge or uniform every day to serve the communities they love because they were killed by an assailant.

Talk of “devaluing life” ignores that the assailants themselves who have destroyed families by their craven actions didn’t value the life of those they took. I express no remorse or sympathy for those who can take a life but demand that their own life be held to a higher standard. First responders and their families deserve justice and a system that makes clear that those who would commit such insidious acts will face the music and this bill does just that.

I motion for cloture.

I yield.

 

7 hours ago, Abrams said:

Madam President,

I second the motion.

I yield.

Cloture motion and second are recognized. Senators have 24 hours to vote on the motion.

 

 

[Brink]

The motion to invoke cloture has failed 56-44. Debate continues.