Law Enforcement Advocates Testify on Violence Against Police
House Homeland Security Committee witnesses—including Michael Hughes (FLIOA), Patrick Yose (FOP), and Daniel Hodges (MPD)—detail a surge in violence: 2,553 officers shot in seven years, 85,000+ assaults on federal agents in 2024, and 620 ambush attacks over five years. They blame dehumanizing rhetoric, like "Gestapo" comparisons, and partisan attacks for fueling distrust, while Democrats cite ICE abuses—such as a 79-year-old citizen’s injuries—and Republicans defend mask-wearing raids amid declining officer shootings post-Biden policies. The hearing exposes how political polarization and unchecked enforcement tactics create lethal risks for law enforcement, deepening societal divisions over accountability and safety. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
a
andrew garbarino
rep/r14:34
b
bennie thompson
rep/d09:12
d
daniel goldman
rep/d05:05
d
delia ramirez
rep/d05:08
l
lou correa
rep/d05:04
Appearances
a
al green
rep/d04:51
a
andy ogles
rep/r03:54
b
brad knott
rep/d03:37
d
dale strong
rep/r02:52
e
eli crane
rep/r04:31
j
james walkinshaw
rep/d04:24
j
josh brecheen
rep/r03:03
j
julie johnson
rep/d04:56
l
lamonica mciver
rep/d04:59
m
michael guest
rep/r04:51
n
nellie pou
rep/d04:29
p
pablo jose hernandez
rep/d04:13
s
seth magaziner
rep/d04:08
t
timothy m kennedy
rep/d04:45
|
Speaker
Time
Text
Exploring Law Enforcement Challenges00:03:48
unidentified
Colleges and Universities President and CEO Jason Altmeyer.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case assessing the legality of President Trump's removal of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission.
The President fired her this past March, saying her service did not align with White House priorities.
The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits the President from removing FDC commissioners without cause, a restriction that the White House argues violates the separation of powers.
We'll have live coverage of the Trump v. Slaughter oral argument starting at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
Law enforcement advocates testified on acts of violence against police officers.
This before the House Homeland Security Committee, the witnesses included the heads of several national law enforcement officers associations, as well as a capital policeman who was present during the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Committee on Homeland Security will come to order.
Without objection, the chair may declare the committee in recess at any point.
The purpose of today's hearing is to explore the impact of anti-law enforcement sentiment has had on operational effectiveness and the measures federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are employing to ensure the safety, security, and mental well-being of their workforce.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Gentlemen, can sit down for now.
Good morning.
It was one week ago that two of our National Guard were shot while on duty right here in D.C. Sadly, specialist Sarah Bextram passed away.
She was only 20 years old.
I ask that my college join me in a moment of silence.
Thank you.
We are here today to examine a deeply troubling and increasingly dangerous trend, the rise of anti-law enforcement sentiment in our country and the real world consequences it has for the brave men and women serving in our law enforcement agencies across the country.
I want to extend my sincere appreciation to Chairman Guest and Fluger for their leadership in keeping this issue at the forefront of our committee's work.
I'm grateful to them for their efforts in helping to drive this conversation forward.
I would also like to welcome Representatives Fong and Walkenshaw as our newest members of the committee.
We look forward to working with them to further our shared mission of securing the homeland.
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but the line between criticism and outright incitement is growing thinner, and too often that line is being crossed.
Our law enforcement officers play an essential role in upholding the rule of law, protecting national security, supporting our state and local partners, and keeping the American public safe.
Yet when anyone seeks to portray law enforcement as enemies of the people, it signals that something is terribly wrong.
Recent events across the country illustrate just how serious this problem is.
In September, a gunman who is believed to have been intentionally targeting ICE personnel opened fire on officers in Dallas who were transporting detainees to an ICE facility, tragically killing two individuals in ICE custody in the process.
That same facility had received a bomb threat only weeks earlier.
These are not isolated incidents.
They represent a brazen disregard for Federal, State, and local agents and officers, as well as innocent bystanders.
According to DHS, ICE officers are facing a shocking escalation in threats, including sharp increases in assaults and death threats since immigration enforcement activities began.
This dramatic rise underscores the serious risks these officers face in the line of duty.
The crisis is not limited to federal law enforcement, though.
In New York City, assaults on uniformed NYPD officers have surged by 63 percent over the last six years, with 970 assaults recorded so far this year compared to 595 at the same point in 2019.
These attacks have included alarming incidents such as the Times Square assault on Sergeant Aaron Donsky, the brutal mugging of Officer Chowdhury Nafis in the Bronx, and other violent encounters targeting officers during routine duties.
The threat is national in scope.
In just six days in July, 10 officers were shot across Ohio, Kansas, and New York, leaving three dead.
Through the end of July, at least 56 new law enforcement officers have been shot in 45 ambush-style attacks.
In September, an arrest warrant in York County, Pennsylvania ended the deadly ambush that killed three more officers.
These are sadly only a few examples of the many violent attacks targeting law enforcement across the country.
Much of this hostility is fueled by rhetoric that spreads rapidly online, rhetoric designed to delegitimize lawful authority and embolden violence against those who wear a badge.
Enough is enough.
These are not random or isolated events.
They are symptoms of a broader attempt to undermine those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
Some perpetrators justify their actions with political grievances.
The right to protest is sacred, but it ends where violence begins.
When inflammatory rhetoric leads to actions that endanger officers' lives, we enter dangerous territory.
Rising hostility erodes morale, fuels burnout, and hinders recruitment and retention for law enforcement.
Ultimately, that weakens public safety and national security, harming the very communities activists claim to defend.
Law enforcement officers work tirelessly on behalf of our communities, and the situations they face on a daily basis take a heavy toll on their mental health, even in the best of times.
In this current environment of increased hostility and violence, those challenges are amplified.
Ensuring our officers have the resources and support they need to protect their personal well-being has been a long-standing priority for me and many of my colleagues on this committee.
I am proud to have worked in previous Congresses with Ranking Member Thompson on his legislation that would boost mental health and suicide prevention resources for DHS personnel, and I look forward to continuing that work with him now as chairman.
But let us be clear, law enforcement personnel are public servants, not public figures.
When taking the oath they did not seek celebrity, they stepped forward to safeguard our nation and uphold the laws enacted by this body.
But that alone does not absolve them from facing any form of accountability.
Public trust and public safety go hand in hand, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they believe agencies can strike an appropriate balance between officer safety and law enforcement accountability.
Our witnesses today have seen the consequences of this rising harassment and violence firsthand.
I hope their testimony reminds my colleagues and the American people that those who wear the badge are human beings whose dedication to safeguarding our country should never make them targets.
This includes the local police who protect our communities around the country, as well as U.S. Capitol police officers and D.C. Metro Police, who keep us safe here every day as we work to represent our constituents.
Officer Hodges, I acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifices you have made to keep us all safe.
As I said then and I believe now, violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and should always be condemned.
We are and must remain a country of law and order.
Today's hearing is not about silencing dissent or restricting free speech.
It is about responsibility and recognizing that rhetoric has consequences and ensuring that officers can perform their duties without fear.
We are reminded of the dangers they face each year when names of fallen heroes are added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C., which honors federal, state, local, and tribal officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
These solemn moments and acts of remembrance reinforce the reality that each of these officers are human beings who leave behind families and loved ones.
We must not become desensitized to this violence or willing to accept these dangerous trends as a new normal.
To the brave men and women of law enforcement, you have our full respect and unwavering support.
Thank you for your service.
I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for his opening statement.
Good morning, and I welcome also our witnesses to this hearing.
I also want to welcome our newest Democratic member to the committee, Representative James Walkinshaw of Virginia's 11th District.
Mr. Walkinshaw is serving on the committee's Cybersecurity and Border Security subcommittees, and we look forward to his contributions to the committee's work.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by offering my condolences in the wake of the tragic shooting of Specialist Sarah Bechtram and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolf in the nation's capital last week.
Our thoughts and the thoughts of all Americans continue to be with the families as they mourn Sarah's loss and pray for Andrew's recovery.
Gun violence is a scourge of our country and violence against troops and law enforcement officers is reprehensible.
All Americans must condemn this violence and the perpetrator must be held accountable.
With that in mind, I appreciate Chairman Garberino's holding today's hearing.
Not only is this his first full committee hearing as chairman, but it's also the committee's first hearing in four and a half months after the former chairman left Congress.
Republicans shut down the government and the Speaker sent the House home.
It's past time for the committees to get back to work.
It's my understanding that next week we will have Secretary Christy Noam before us at our annual worldwide threat hearing, and that too is also long overdue.
Never in the history of the committee has the Secretary of Homeland Security hidden from congressional oversight like she has, aided by a Republican majority that refuses to hold the Trump administration accountable.
Secretary Noam has a lot to answer for, particularly about how she's using mass officers to terrorize communities, including American citizens, children, pregnant women, and seniors, putting law enforcement officers and the public at risk.
We look forward to her appearance next week.
As for today's hearing, I'm pleased that Republicans want to address violence against police officers, but quite frankly, I just can't get over their hypocrisy.
Republicans have spent the last five years defending the armed mob that attacked police officers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
They demanded pardons for the perpetrators and cheered when President Trump issued them.
Republicans don't care that pardoning people who threaten and attack officers would encourage others to do the same.
They did it anyway.
Many Republicans voted to put this plaque.
Staff were displaying the poster in the Capitol honoring the service and sacrifice of law enforcement on January 6th, but have since been silent on their leadership, still refusing to hang the plaque for fear of angering President Trump.
Republicans care more about being in President Trump's good graces than they do about honoring officers who put their lives on the line to protect the Capitol on January 6th.
Today, we're grateful to have one of those heroes, Officer Daniel Hodges, with us.
His testimony to this committee and his prior testimony before the committee on January 6th attack, which I was honored to chair, is an insightful as it is powerful.
Officer Hodges responded to the Capitol on January 6th, where he and his fellow officers were beaten, tased, and crushed by an armed mob that wanted to block the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
I asked the clerk to play a video showing just a few moments of Officer Hodges and his fellow officers under attack at the Capitol on January 6th.
Please be advised that the video contains strong language.
Officer Hodges, no matter how many times you've seen it, I cannot imagine how difficult it is for you to watch that footage of yourself in the tunnel.
There are no words to adequately describe that awful day and no way fully express our appreciation for what you and your fellow officers did to protect all of us who were gathered in the Capitol that day.
I know the threats of violence against you and other officers did not end on January 6th, but continue to this day.
I thank you for being here and commend your bravery in continuing to speak out.
Unfortunately, when it comes to condemning threats and violence from the far right, the silence from our colleagues on the other side is deafening.
Until Republicans are willing to acknowledge the problem on their side of the political spectrum and do something about it, their statements about protecting police officers are hypocritical.
And unless they are willing to call out how the Trump administration's illegal enforcement tactics are endangering law enforcement and the public right now, their statements about protecting police officers are meaningless.
I urge Republicans to join us in condemning attacks against police, regardless of ideological motivation, and begin holding the Trump administration accountable for its actions.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record.
I'm pleased to have a highly distinguished panel of witnesses before us today.
I ask that our witnesses please rise and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give before the Committee on Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Thank you all, and please be seated.
I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
Michael Hughes is the Executive Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, where he leads strategic initiatives and oversees the organization's operations in support of its more than 33,000 members.
Based in Washington, D.C., he joined the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in March of 2025 following a distinguished 34-year career in law enforcement.
Jonathan Thompson is Executive Director and CEO of the National Sheriffs Association, the nation's preeminent nonprofit entity representing the interests of 3,080 sheriffs in the United States and their deputies.
Previously, he was a principal with Referro Communications, helping organizations plan and implement their communication strategies on a wide variety of public affairs, public relations, and government outreach endeavors.
Patrick Yose is the National President for the Fraternal Order of Police.
Over his career, Madrick has served on commissions and charitable and community service boards.
He's a strong law enforcement advocate, holding leadership positions on his state, local, and national FOP boards.
Nearly 36 years as an active law enforcement officer, Patrick retired in 2020 from the St. Charles Sheriff's Office, the sole law enforcement agency for the St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, a suburb 18 miles west of New Orleans.
Daniel Hodges is an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, where he served since 2014.
Before joining MPD, he served in the Virginia National Guard.
Within MPD, he is assigned to patrol duties and is a member of the Department's Civil Disturbance Unit 42, which handles large demonstrations, crowd control, and emergency riot response.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
I now recognize Mr. Hughes for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.
unidentified
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 33,000 federal criminal investigators, police officers, and law enforcement professionals nationwide.
I spent more than 34 years in federal law enforcement as an investigator, supervisor, senior executive, and political appointee.
I led the U.S. Marshal's Office here in Washington, D.C., and concluded my government service as Director of Interpol, Washington, coordinating our nation's global law enforcement efforts with Interpol and international partners.
Today, I'm honored to serve as FLIOA's Executive Director, advocating for the men and women who protect our country every day.
Throughout my career, one thing has remained constant.
Federal officers remain unwavering in their oath to the Constitution and their duty to enforce the laws Congress enacts.
Regardless of the political environment, what has changed is the environment in which they serve.
It has grown increasingly hostile, with rising violence, threats, and online harassment directed at officers and increasingly at their families.
Risk has always been part of Federal law enforcement, and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial stands as a solemn reminder of the ultimate sacrifices officers make when carrying out a sworn duty to protect and serve others.
But what we are seeing today is unprecedented in scope and intensity.
The heightened polarization surrounding Federal law enforcement's role in immigration enforcement and efforts to reduce violent crime in major cities has placed officers in greater jeopardy than at any point in my career.
In 2024, the FBI reported more than 85,000 assaults on law enforcement, the highest number in a decade.
Ambush attacks continue to climb.
ICE officers alone have seen assaults increase more than 1,100 percent this year.
These are staggering numbers that reflect the very real dangers officers face simply for carrying out the laws that Congress has enacted.
The tragic ambush attack last week, only boxed from the White House, that killed West Virginia National Guard specialist Sarah Beckstrom and critically injured Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, makes this painfully clear.
They had been sworn in less than 24 hours earlier in support of joint efforts to reduce violent crime.
We mourn Specialist Beckstrom and pray for Sergeant Wolfe's recovery.
And the danger isn't limited to violence in the field.
Doxying, digital harassment, and threats aimed at family members have become disturbingly common.
In one instance, individuals followed an ICE agent home, live streamed it, and posted his address online.
These are not hypothetical threats.
They have real, lasting consequences.
Constructive criticism of law enforcement is healthy, and accountability is essential.
But what we are seeing today from some public figures, segments of the media, and even some elected officials is not accountability, it is vilification.
When officers are depicted as political actors or adversaries rather than public servants, that rhetoric fuels hostility and makes already difficult jobs even more dangerous.
Federal officers are your neighbors.
They are parents, veterans, volunteers in their communities, and even family members.
Reducing them to political characters is inaccurate, corrosive, and dangerous.
We believe strongly in accountability, but accountability must be paired with protection.
Officers who fear for their safety or the safety of their families cannot perform at their best.
And at a time when nearly a third of our Federal law enforcement workforce is eligible for retirement and recruitment and retention is already a challenge, this rising threat environment poses a serious national security concern.
Congress has tools to address this.
And my written statement outlines several long-standing but urgently needed measures.
Taken together, they would send a strong message that Congress stands with those who uphold the law.
Federal officers enforce the laws you enact.
They protect our borders, communities, and national security out of a deep sense of duty.
The rise in targeted violence and corrosive rhetoric threatens their safety and erodes public trust.
We cannot allow this trend to continue.
Protecting those who protect us is not a partisan issue.
I now recognize Mr. Thompson for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's an honor and it's deeply humbling to be invited to speak with you today.
Ranking Member Thompson, as always, it's an honor to be with you as well.
And I welcome the newest member of the committee.
You have your hands full.
You have your hands full.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the end of this year marks the end of my 11th year with the National Sheriffs Association.
Over the period of that time, I've had the blessing to represent the nation's 3,081 sheriffs.
So I'm going to deviate from my summary, and I'm going to speak to you from the heart for just a few minutes.
I hope you'll bear with me.
And like my colleague on the right, I would endorse 99.9% of what he just said.
And it's in my written statement as well.
And those things need to be addressed by this committee and by every single member on this committee, Republican and Democrat, because the public is in danger as we speak.
The rhetoric coming from the top, calling officers Nazis and Gestapo, it better stop right now.
You are in flaming dangerous circumstances.
You're attacking the people that wake up every single day to do one thing.
They put on their uniforms.
They put on their star.
And they are paid to do a job, a job that is to enforce the laws of this country, the laws that have been passed by those that have been elected by the people of this country.
Those are the laws that we in this nation built over decades and centuries to respect the civility of our behavior.
They're doing so because of one reason.
They're not doing it, and I'll tell you why, they're not doing it for the money, as these three gentlemen can attest to.
They're not doing it for the glory, as these three gentlemen and others will attest to.
They're doing it for one reason, for public service, for public safety.
In my 11 years, I've had the distasteful job to sign more than 2,300 condolence letters to officers, to deputies, to the agencies that they represent.
These are humans.
These are family members.
These are people that deserve our standing ovation every single day.
They are no different than our military, except in one way.
Every day they see the worst, the worst of society.
The worst.
And they have to wake up and do it again tomorrow.
They deserve not just a pat on the back, they deserve your respect, every one of yours' respect, Republicans and Democrats.
They deserve your thank you.
They deserve the right to be treated with civility.
And when you in this body choose not to do so, you disrespect them, you disrespect yourself, you disrespect the citizens in your district, the people that elected you.
It's appalling.
And I implore you, all of you, To throw down those barriers of partisanship and recognize that our nation has threats.
The threat matrix that you'll hear from the Secretary, God bless her, next week, have now been added to by one.
The rhetoric of our leaders calling out and stating things, as I said, as Nazis and Gestapo tactics.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have nothing to do but read history.
There is no Nazis acting in the law enforcement community of this country, and we are certainly not.
We are certainly not living in 1939, Germany.
And when I hear it, I cry.
There is no greater honor for me to sit here before all of you and have an honest discussion about what good and what wrong may occur in law enforcement.
They are not perfect.
And when there's a problem, they need to be held accountable.
The leaders of our respective groups recognize and have even acknowledged that the will of the people changes in this country, and tactics to keep them safe change as well.
I want to conclude with just a couple of comments: dehumanizing rhetoric breeds violence.
There is research on this.
Professor Pape at the University of Chicago will release a study next week that shows exactly what I'm talking about.
It doesn't motivate your base.
It doesn't make more donors give you money.
It creates lone wolves.
Epidemic of Attacks Against Law Enforcement00:15:32
unidentified
It creates people like what we saw last week, whose name I won't even mention, who held a handgun to the head of that specialist.
I now recognize Mr. Yeo's five minutes to summarize his opening statement.
unidentified
Chairman Gabarino, Ranking Member Thompson, and members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of the 382,000 local, state, and federal members of the Paternal Order Police, our nation's oldest and largest law enforcement organization.
I'm elated that you're having this hearing today, for it's long overdue.
I want to thank each of you for the opportunity to talk about the fraternal order police's number one legislative priority.
Our nation is facing an epidemic of targeted violence against law enforcement officers, an epidemic supported by real data that cannot be ignored.
The Paternal Order Police collects, verifies, and publishes the most comprehensive data in the nation on officers shot, officers shot and killed, and officers ambushed because no one else was doing it.
No federal agency or national database was tracking these incidents with a sense of urgency that this crisis demands.
We built this system from the ground up, methodically, transparent, and accurate.
In 2019, we formalized our partnership with the COPS Office through a federal grant, allowing us to expand our work.
Today, we provide monthly reports to the COPS office, policymakers, the media, and the public.
And the COPS office publishes a national report every spring based on fraternal order police collected data.
And the truth is undeniable.
Last year, there were 342 officers that were shot in the line of duty, and 50 were killed.
There were 62 ambush-style attacks, and 79 officers shot, 18 of which were killed.
In November, as of November 30th of this year, 314 officers have been shot and 43 killed.
There have been 62 ambush attacks resulting in 21 deaths.
In fact, since we started collecting this data comprehensively in 2018, a little less than seven years ago, 2,553 officers have been shot.
415 have been killed.
In the past five years, there have been 620 officers shot in 483 separate ambush attacks, killing 135 officers.
These are not selective numbers.
They are real, verified incidents.
These numbers have no bias.
They have no agenda.
They are just real.
And they reveal an unmistakable trend.
That is, we have an epidemic.
And like all epidemics, it has causes.
The FBI's assailant study found that nearly one-third of cop killers self-identified as being motivated by the narrative that portrays law enforcement as the villain.
That narrative, used for political gain, is amplified across social media platforms and other means, and it all too often goes unchallenged.
And it's not harmless rhetoric.
It is fuel.
We have seen this fuel ignite in cities and towns, large and small, all across America.
Officers have been murdered while eating lunch, sitting in patrol cars, driving home to their families at the end of the shift.
In fact, according to a 2017 report from the cops' office, more than one half of the ambush officers killed weren't even on a call.
They were targeted because they were wearing a badge.
Just last week, not far from where we sit today, that epidemic added two more victims when two National Guardsmen fulfilling the law enforcement role were targeted and brutally attacked simply because of the uniform they wore.
This violence is not hypothetical, is not isolated, and it's certainly not slowing down.
It's not about tactics.
It's not about policy debate.
It's about hatred, stoked, spread, and normalized until someone acts on it.
The Protect and Served Act would provide the Department of Justice with a means to prosecute these targeted attacks.
In 2018, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously cleared this act and advanced it to the House Florida where it would overwhelmingly pass in a bipartisan vote of 382 to 35.
It failed to become law in that session of Congress when the state chose not to chose not to consider it.
And today, even with ambush attacks continuing to rise, the House Judiciary Committee will not move this act forward.
When someone calls 911, we answer.
We always answer.
Well, we're the ones that are calling now.
We're calling on Congress.
We're pleading with Congress, and we ask you to answer that call.
Stand up against the rhetoric that fuels the violence against law enforcement officers.
Acknowledge this epidemic for what it is, a stain on the very fabric of society.
Send a strong message to America's law enforcement professionals.
Let them know that you recognize this violence towards them and you're committed to end this lethal trend.
Let America's peace officers know that you appreciate the job that they do and you've got their backs.
And it's time to send a strong message to anyone that would target law enforcement officers.
Let them know, let these criminals know that attacks on a law enforcement officer is an attack on a community and it will be met with real consequences of their violent actions.
This epidemic is real.
It's based on undeniable quantitative data and it's growing and it demands immediate action, not after the next tragedy, but right now.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
I now recognize Mr. Hodges for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.
unidentified
Good morning.
I was invited today to speak in my personal capacity, I suspect because Ranking Member Thompson is familiar with my history, as I've been on the receiving end of threats and violence due to the work I've done in the name of the law.
I experienced intense violence during the insurrection of January 6th, and because I had the temerity to describe it publicly, threats against my life, bomb threats at events I attend, people trying to find out where I live, whether I have a wife or children they can use against me.
I have a feeling I will be asked about how the lionization of the insurrectionists only enhanced their zealotry, about how the mass pardoning of every criminal who assaulted my colleagues and I encourages further lawlessness and violence.
About how in the intervening years many pardoned insurrectionists have been rearrested for crimes such as reckless homicide, child sexual assault, threats to blow up government buildings, and a kill list of FBI agents.
These are all salient points, and I'm happy to address them.
However, the tenor of the press release announced this hearing made it sound like certain participants were going to spend a few hours scratching their heads and pretending not to understand why threats against law enforcement have risen so sharply this year, and I cannot abide such a farce.
Law enforcement is predicated on the notion that we are a nation of laws, that anyone who is detained by law enforcement officials will be afforded all the rights and protections that are guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
It is this exemplary standard of civil society that compels individuals to cooperate when faced with arrest.
Flawed as it is, our justice system aspires to and works toward the goal of truth and equal protection under the law.
Unfortunately, this year, broad swaths of federal law enforcement have proven that this is no longer the case.
Perjury and contempt of court used to be prohibitive of work in law enforcement, but now it appears to be a prerequisite of leadership.
Kash Patel, the director of the FBI, had already been found not credible as a witness in the court of law prior to his appointment.
And Greg Bavino, the so-called commander-at-large of border control, was found to have lied while under oath in order to justify his use of force against Americans.
Even the Secretary of Homeland Security, Chrissy Noam, intentionally defied a judge's order to halt the trafficking of prisoners to foreign countries and then bragged about it on national television.
I should add here that one of the hallmarks of secret police forces throughout history is operating outside the law, using violence and intimidation to achieve their objectives.
Every day I wake up and I'm confronted with more heinous acts by some federal law enforcement, pointing their lethal weapons at protesters and journalists, needlessly assaulting citizens on their own property, threatening to shoot and arrest EMTs for doing their job, holding children hostage to coerce their parents out of their house.
One shot a woman who committed no crime several times and bragged about it, saying he fired five rounds and she had seven holes.
Many of these absolute embarrassments to the badge keep their face obscured to try and evade any possibility of accountability, and their leadership condones it.
If the inhabitants of our country can no longer believe in the rule of law, then they can no longer believe in law enforcement.
If they believe they will be denied their basic rights, what motivation do they have to cooperate with investigations to support law enforcement as an institution?
The fact of the matter is that right now, in the United States of America, there is a semi-secret police force abducting people based on the color of their skin and sending many of them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial concentration camps.
There are still plenty of good officers.
I work with them, federal and local.
But before we go around the room clutching our pearls, wondering how people could possibly compare law enforcement in this country to Gestapo, maybe we should take a moment and ask ourselves if there isn't some recent behavior on the government's part that could encourage such a juxtaposition.
Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their five minutes of questions.
An additional round of questioning may be called after all members have been recognized.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for opening questions.
Mr. Yeose, recent Highness Acts have brought increased attention to the rise in threats against law enforcement.
I'm all aware that this is a danger agents and officers have faced for a long time.
In your testimony, you mentioned how your organization has looked at recent attacks as a persistent, growing issue over the last two decades.
Can you elaborate on the historical patterns of attacks against law enforcement your organization has been monitoring?
unidentified
So we started collecting this data because we recognize the trend in this country.
And surprisingly, while we track a lot of data in this country, we were not tracking the amount of law enforcement officers or violence towards law enforcement officers.
All we knew was certain aspects of that.
So we started tracking this data because we knew it was going to show us a pattern.
And I want to be clear.
I know there's a lot of political charge discussion here, and I expected that.
But I'm going to ask you to just recognize, I'm telling you, 2,553 officers have been shot in the last seven years.
That spans two administrations.
So if we want to try and focus on the fact that politics is doing this, I think we're missing a point and we're doing a disservice to the people who suit up and show up every single day in communities across this country and do their job.
What we're seeing is a number of factors, and that is the dehumanization of law enforcement officers.
And this goes over, like I said, seven years.
As a matter of fact, I would argue that if you look at the past four years, the numbers were actually higher than a high spike.
Not that there were low numbers to start with.
So the challenges are much greater, much greater.
It has to do with unchecked comments made to dehumanize law enforcement officers that are causing people to act on what they feel is a community built around their own belief system.
I think these political attacks amongst political opponents are putting actual targets on the law enforcement men and women's backs instead of their opponents.
And I think people we need to recognize that has been happening for the last, as you said, seven years.
unidentified
I will tell you that my members are both Democrat and Republican, and we are all having the same problem.
As these targeted threats against officers and their families continue to escalate, what measures do you believe law enforcement agents should prioritize to keep personnel safe on and off duty?
unidentified
Well, so it's a pretty big question.
It could take a while to answer.
I'm going to start off in the context of what we have here.
I think the first thing we need to do is we need to turn on a rhetoric.
We all need to recognize that we all play a part in this.
This is on both sides.
We need to recognize that there is a real crisis here, and it really is upsetting that this is the first hearing we haven't on this in quite some time.
But they have quantitative data to shoot us a real problem.
I'll make a comparison.
You know, Congress's responsibility is a lot of things.
One of them is to make sure that Americans working in their jobs can do so under safe environments.
And I'll give you an example.
If there were a cave-in at a mine, a coal mine, we would have hearings on the safety of that coal mine, and so you should.
What about the 2,533 officers that are shot over seven years?
What more quantitative data do we have that we need?
So the first thing we need to do is we all need to turn down a rhetoric.
We need to focus that there is, in fact, a real problem and stop trying to paint it as one person's problem as opposed to the others, because it is all of our responsibilities to find a solution to it.
Turn down a rhetoric, turn down a rhetoric, stop dehumanizing law enforcement, and recognize that words have consequences.
And for people who believe that they act on those, that would be number one.
The second would be pass the Protect and Serve Act.
Give the Federal Government the opportunity of the Department of Justice to step in under certain circumstances in order to be able to protect the interests of law enforcement officers and their communities with the increase in violence we are seeing.
Mr. Hughes, ICE enforcement officers and other federal law enforcement partners are working to ensure our nation's laws are being followed.
Fortunately, rising anti-police sentiment has compromised officer and agent safety.
Can you talk about the impact on federal law enforcement when such strong opposition is encouraged and directed towards officers who are simply enforcing the law?
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just want to say thank you for all your efforts in enhancing the protection of law enforcement officers, state, local, federal.
Particularly grateful for all your work and leadership in 9-11 health issues and aiding the responders through the World Trade Center health program, which I was there as well.
So I appreciate all the efforts from you and all the members of the committee.
The anti-law enforcement sentiment that is being displayed is very real.
It's very impactful.
It's impactful on recruitment retention.
It's impactful upon how people do, law enforcement officers do their work.
And it's a matter of we need to be working together.
Everyone up here, all the witnesses, has made the comment about both sides working together.
I think this is a common issue that we could all be working together on in decreasing the rhetoric on what is happening and protect our officers.
Look at ways to protect the officers.
Relying On Law Enforcement Jeopardy00:10:45
unidentified
It is widespread.
We need to make sure we are working together and looking at ways that we could enhance through enhancing laws or coming up with new bills, which is being done.
But again, coming together and working together to have this done.
I don't think any of us here denigrate any law enforcement officer.
You put your life online every day.
But in every occupation, there are standards that you have to adhere to.
And you follow them fine.
If you don't, the system addresses whatever that fault is.
But I think part of what a lot of us are concerned about is, for instance, Officer Hard, you recently wrote about the dangers of sending federal law enforcement into American communities wearing masks to hide their identity, wearing no insignia, badges or name tapes, and driving unmarked cars.
You pointed out that the public and other law enforcement officers have no way of knowing that these mystery agents are legally sworn law enforcement officers.
Can you please elaborate on why this practice is so dangerous to the public as well as to federal law enforcement officers?
unidentified
Certainly.
I think it's obvious that if masked armed individuals hop out of a nondescript vehicle and attempt to force someone against their will into the vehicle, that looks to anyone like a kidnapping.
And as a law enforcement who sees that, I would treat it as a kidnapping until they were able to prove that they had the lawful authority to conduct that detention.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could get very bad very quickly.
And aside from that, it just erodes, or more than erodes, it destroys trust between the community and law enforcement, which is paramount.
We need the community on our side in order to successfully conduct our mission, in order to make headway in so many investigations, because we're not everywhere.
We rely on the community to help us, and they rely on us to protect them.
So these terrible practices of incognito officers just doing whatever they feel like when the president went on the television and said police officers can do whatever they want now.
It's that kind of rhetoric that really just destroys what the institution of law enforcement is supposed to stand for.
So yeah, we need to do something different about this.
A lot of us were in the Capitol on January 6th, and we saw firsthand what happened.
Most of us did not fathom the United States Capitol being overrun by anybody.
On that day, over 140 federal law enforcement officers were hurt.
Unfortunately, several succumbed to some of their injuries later.
Tell me your opinion that people who either played guilty on assaulting law enforcement officers or were found guilty.
How do you, as a sworn law enforcement officer, feel when those individuals get pardoned?
unidentified
Pardoning people who attempted to stop the transfer of power, who assaulted my colleagues and I, it just emboldens them to feel that they can do it again, to feel that they can attack the police again, to feel that they can act as the president's personal militia.
And that's not just conjecture.
That's something that actually one of them tried to do when I was trying to restart the Oath Keepers and said that we can serve as the President's militia.
So there were no lessons learned from so many of them.
There is they're ready to conduct violence again, political violence, violence against police.
And I just don't want to see that happen ever again.
Before I begin, I would like to issue my condolences to the family of Sarah Bextram, who passed away just over a week ago as she was patrolling the grounds outside of the White House in what can be described as nothing more than a premeditated attack from the gunman in that case.
And also, I want the family of Andrew Wolf to know that our prayers are with him as he tries to recover from the gunshot wound that he suffered.
I think that highlights the reason that we're here today.
The attack that we saw after this hearing had been announced, but before these witnesses were convened today, of the animosity that we see toward law enforcement.
And look, we can point to other incidents.
It's not just the attack that we saw in Washington, D.C. Just looking back over the six months, we saw on July 4th the attack at the Prairie View ICE detention facility, in which we had an officer who was killed, or excuse me, an officer who was struck in the neck, and we had nine individuals who have been indicted for their attack on that facility.
We know that less than a week later, there was an attack on a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas.
We know that on September 24th, there was an attack at a Dallas facility, an ICE detention center, in which we had three detainees who were shot, two of which die.
And so we have a track record.
We have a history of looking and looking and seeing that what we are talking about is extremely important.
We have individual acts that can back up the reason for this hearing.
Now, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Yost, each of you, in your opening statement and your written statement, you talk about the rhetoric that is being used.
I will summarize very quickly, just take out bits and pieces of your testimony.
Mr. Hughes, you say that the rise in targeted violence and the corrosive rhetoric directed at public servants have created an atmosphere that jeopardizes officers' safety and erode public trust.
Mr. Thompson, you say violence against law enforcement is rising sharply in record high assaults and officer shooting.
This trend is fueled by growing anti-law enforcement rhetoric.
Mr. Yost, you say the same thing.
You talk about violent and hateful rhetoric, if left unchallenged, leads to physical violence, and that we have seen it happen on a widespread basis in the profession of law enforcement.
And so I want to, for just a second, I want to talk about some of those statements.
We can talk about those in abstract, but I want to talk about those and some of the statements that I found in doing a very brief research on this topic.
Governor Pritzner claimed the country is becoming Nazi Germany because ICE is grabbing people off the street and disappearing them.
Representative Crockett compared ICE to slave patrols.
Representative Garcia referred to ICE as thugs.
Representative Ramirez attacked ICE as a terror force and later referred to ICE as a terrorist organization.
Representative Jaipaul called ICE agents derained and said as inspiring to obstruct immigration enforcement.
Governor Waltz smeared ICE agents as modern-day Gestapo.
Chicago Mayor Johnson accused secret police of terrorizing our community.
Representative Lynch referred to ICE agents as the Gestapo and nondescript thugs.
And Representative Frost compared ICE operations to some of the worst horrors and crimes against humanity in history.
And so to you, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Yost, are these the statements that you are referring to?
And do these statements, in fact, place law enforcement officers' lives in jeopardy?
Do you believe that they place lives in jeopardy?
Mr. Hughes.
Just yes or no?
My time is short.
unidentified
Mr. Chairman, all statements that are anti-rhetoric against police officers place officers in safety.
And then, Mr. Hodges, I also read your statement, and there's a statement that you made, the next to last paragraph of your statement.
It says, The fact of the matter is that right now in the United States of America, there is a secret police force abducting people on the color of their skin and sending many of them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial concentration camps.
Mr. Hodges, I will tell you that that is a statement that I find extremely troubling and that I could not disagree with more.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm out of time and I yield back.
My brother just retired from LAPD after 30 years of serving that community.
Mr. Hodges, you were there January 6th.
So was I.
To this day, I will not forget what happened that day.
I can't imagine what you think about on a given day watching you on that video, knowing what we went through, stuck in that gallery, but you had the physical assault on you.
To the families of Sarah Backstrom and Sergeant Wolk, my prayers are with you, with your families.
Difficult times.
We pray for you.
Gentlemen, you don't have a tough job.
We have a tough job to bring back trust in public safety.
It's not us versus them.
You defend our community, the thin blue line that's there to protect us.
Earlier, we talked about situations I've had back home.
Got to make it work again.
Back home, we've spent decades, decades, trying to bring trust between our communities and public safety, and it actually worked.
Let me tell you what's going on right now.
Videos on social media, people forced into unmarked cars, agents wearing plain clothes, masks, don't identify themselves.
Some of those people that have been apprehended are U.S. citizens.
I know.
I've talked to them.
What's the message that's being sent to our communities, to my community, to my children?
Their uncle is a police officer.
What do I tell my children?
And just to tell you that I'm not being overdramatic, here's an FBI memo recently issued by the FBI, urging ICE agents to identify themselves after a string of impersonators committing crimes.
This memo cites five cases where criminals impersonating masked agents, kidnapping, robbering, sexual assaults.
This is not the way you instill trust in our society.
Back home in Santa recently, masked ICE agent, plain clothes, pointed a gun at a woman that he claimed was following and recording him.
Local Santa Ana PD officer responded to the call.
You can imagine what almost happened.
A tragic situation.
Armed police officer, armed ICE agent, that close to a gunfight.
I don't know how this situation is helping us instill trust between our communities and police officers.
Don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to turn to resources.
We all talk about making sure you have the resources to protect your communities and make sure you're safe.
I have a memo here from my sheriff, Don Barnes, who has been here as a witness, the Republican side.
One of the biggest issues he talks about, resources.
F fiscal year 2026 budget, resources that you've asked for, a billion dollars in cuts to 40 Department of Justice grant programs, $545 billion in cuts to the FBI, $500 billion cuts to cybersecurity and infrastructure, another $200 million DEA cuts,
billions of dollars of FEMA funding froze for counterterrorism grants to state locals.
Sheriff Barnes tells me the changing environment, the changing threat environment to public safety, and I say to our constituents, demands that we have the resources and we coordinate.
Here we're talking us versus them.
But when we start cutting resources back from the local public safety officers trying to coordinate with the feds, this, I can't imagine how this is good public policy when it comes to protecting our public state.
Mr. Thompson, my last seven seconds, go ahead.
unidentified
Mr. Carrera, thank you.
And I echo those concerns about resources.
We're facing a crisis of recruitment and retention.
You can ask any of the gentlemen on my left or my right.
It's in every agency across this country.
But let's look at what's driving that.
It's the rhetoric.
No two ways about it.
Our research, we just did a national survey on this.
And, you know, when you're utilizing the stats that talk about the thousands of ambush-style attacks over the last many years, targeting law enforcement, it's such a dangerous environment.
When you, for those, people are going to be offended when I say this, but hopefully they'll understand how far the pendulum is swinging.
There was a time, not so long ago, where if you had a child that got paddled in high school because they were disruptive, had disruptive behavior, disrespectful to an authority, the father would say to that person when they got home, I'm giving you some more in terms of paddling.
If the coach gave you a little, then you're going to get a paddling when you get home.
And they didn't take the child's defense because they were teaching the young adult the respect of authority.
We have a culture now that coddles young adults.
It's why teachers are struggling because you can't teach and educate when you're having to deal with behavior in the classroom.
So we have to have a cultural reform on this where parents go back to a place where some, you know, for trying to raise their children and operate in more grace, but the pendulum has swung way too far.
And the respect of authority has been lost at the younger generations.
And it is paying dividends in what is being experienced in law enforcement.
So we've got a cultural problem.
And you're talking about the online threats.
And I want to hear more if anyone wants to talk about how do we balance the online threats with those who would learn how to target a law enforcement officer trying to intimidate.
This is how we move to third world country status.
When you no longer have the rule of law, you will have poverty.
And that is where we're headed as a country.
We are headed towards an impoverished state.
I love the statement from a few years ago.
Hard times produce strong men.
Strong men produce good times.
Good times produce weak men.
And weak men produce hard times.
Apply it to women as well, right?
When you go through a struggle, it builds character in you.
And we're about to go through a struggle in this country because we're not producing good character traits from the young adults all the way up to the way that plays out 20 and 30 years from now.
What do we do in balancing the First Amendment for those that are doxing, sending out personal information, not only for the law enforcement officers, but are also doing this for their children, trying to intimidate and move us to third world country status?
Where is the balance?
How do we get a hold of that?
And I'll just open that up to anybody who wants to talk about where do we find constitutionally sound ways to address that?
Because you're saying the stats and the data say the encouragement online is why these thousands of assault attempts, officers sitting in vehicles is occurring.
If I open it up to anybody.
unidentified
I'll go very briefly.
I think Madison's turning in his grave.
I think there's an awful lot of twisting of the First Amendment and what free speech means.
I think we all need to take a big giant step backwards and reevaluate how that applies.
Specifically, the Internet has so much value, but it's a dangerous place.
We have to recognize that perhaps these are media companies.
I know that's probably sacrilege among some on the right, but they have an obligation, and a lot of it, a lot of it, is coming straight from social media.
Pure and simple.
Pat.
I'll add just an extension of that is when you look at, we all know the difference between right and wrong.
We were raised on it.
We know.
We know the rule of law.
We know what we're supposed to do.
We know what's acceptable, what's not.
I think the problem we see, and social media has played a big part of that, is it's given excuses of why you cannot follow the rule of law.
We have blurred the lines of which the difference between right and wrong, and we validated the ability to be able to believe your belief system and feel that your actions are appropriate.
So you're right.
It lies our challenge.
There has to be some accountability somewhere along the way because what we're doing is damage.
And when we're not checking this, we're adding fuel to this fire.
And there's no question we're seeing the results of it.
Mr. Chues.
Thank you, Congressman.
I would also add, working in the international environment, you can see how other countries do this.
When you go too far one way or the other, you see consequences, good or bad, of privacy and speech rights.
But what we need to be doing is looking at the social media issues.
I think that's a huge part of what's going on and looking at what laws need to be passed, what the right balance is.
And that's what this body can and should be working on as well to help in that arena.
If there is legislation that you're aware of that's floating around out there, please let some of us know that does the balance because I didn't see that any of the testimony this morning without a yield.
We need to support law enforcement officers who put themselves in harm's way every day to serve their communities and to keep people safe.
And any acts of violence against law enforcement cannot be tolerated.
I want to tell you all the story of one police officer from suburban America who is a victim of violence and injustice.
This is Officer Radu Bojovic, and he served his community of Hanover Park, Illinois, as a police officer.
Like many police officers across the country, he is a legal immigrant.
Yet, despite being a legal immigrant, Officer Bojovic was arrested and detained by ICE as part of the Trump administration's Operation Midway Blitz and locked up for two weeks before being released.
He was legally authorized to work in the United States.
He had a work permit from DHS.
He had passed FBI and Illinois State Police criminal background checks when he was hired by the department.
Now listen, we all know it is dangerous for police officers out on the street every day.
Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to be a police officer in prison, especially an innocent officer who has done nothing wrong and committed no crime?
But this is what you get under the Trump administration.
Chaos, cruelty, innocent people being locked up just to meet Stephen Miller's arbitrary quotas.
And this is not an isolated case.
Under the Trump administration, ICE has locked up police officers in Arizona and Maine and countless other innocent, hardworking people who have committed no crimes.
This is Sejun Park from Hawaii, an Army veteran who has lived in the country legally for 50 years.
He was deployed to Panama in 1989 and shot in the back.
He took a bullet for our country.
But the Trump administration just deported him to a country he hasn't lived in since he was seven just because, like many veterans, he previously had struggles with substance abuse that led to some minor drug arrests.
He deserves to be honored for his service, not deported.
Donna Hughes Brown, a grandmother from Missouri who has lived in the U.S. legally for 48 years, has been in prison since July.
She is still there.
Imprisoned by the Trump administration, she faces deportation.
The only crime she committed, writing two bad checks totaling less than $80 10 years ago.
Her husband is a combat veteran.
They deported a four-year-old U.S. citizen boy with late-stage cancer, a U.S. citizen who has the right, like all U.S. citizens, to have due process.
And his mother did not consent to have him deported, but his rights were ignored by the Trump administration.
Listen to me.
None of these people were in the country illegally.
None of them committed any serious crimes.
By the administration's own data, 70% of the people they have detained have no criminal convictions.
The Trump administration should be going after violent criminals, not veterans, not kids with cancer, and not police officers like Officer Bojovic.
And while we are on the subject of condemning violence against law enforcement, I want to thank you, Officer Hodges, for your bravery in defending our Capitol against the extremists on January 6th.
It is shameful that the Republican leadership of this House still refuses to hang this plaque, honoring you and your federal officers for their sacrifice.
So I say to my Republican colleagues in the room right now, if you really support law enforcement, talk to Speaker Johnson today.
Text him right now.
Tell him to hang the plaque.
If Officer Hodges could find the courage to risk his life for all of you on January 6th, you can find the courage to stand up to your extreme base and show him and the other officers who served on January 6th the respect that they deserve.
And with that, run the video.
Support For Law Enforcement00:15:24
unidentified
Composable capital injury!
Compulsors capital injury!
If I give this up, they're going to have to run back to what we can defend.
And I recognize a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fluger, for five minutes of questions.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing.
I want you all to know, and please pass this along to all the people that you represent in law enforcement that we support you, that we believe in you, that we need you, that this is not just something that is lip service, but it's an actual heartfelt statement.
And I think we've proven that, at least on this side of the aisle, time and again, with legislation that backs that up.
The soon-to-be mayor of the city with the largest police department in America, New York City, the socialist mayor-elect Zoron Mandani, has appointed Alex Vital, a vocal police abolition advocate, to his so-called Community Safety Transition Committee.
Vital's book, The End of Policing, argues that traditional policing and law enforcement institutions are fundamentally irredeemable and should be dismantled rather than be reformed.
Yet another example of how the radical left seeks to undermine our institutions in the name of a dystopian ideological experiment.
To Mr. Thompson, in jurisdictions that are led by elected officials with anti-police agendas where local governments have undermined policing capacity and allowed crime and violence against officers to rise, do you believe that the Trump administration is taking the right approach by deploying federal law enforcement resources to stabilize these areas?
I do.
I believe it's long overdue.
I think it's not perfect by any shape of the imagination, sir.
And I have read that book, by the way, and I had to put it down after three quarters of the way.
I couldn't finish reading it.
It just incensed me.
But back to the point.
We hear these stories of the failures in law enforcement, and they are minuscule.
Last year, there were 250,000 deaths from medical malpractice.
I don't hear anybody calling for the elimination of doctors in medicine for medical malpractice.
Maybe somebody could show me what's being done on an equal level to that attack.
250,000.
And we need doctors.
We need nurses.
But we also need civility and the rule of law has long been the backbone of this country.
And it has to be civil.
And it has to be fair and transparent.
And it has to be sought after for protection, for perfection.
To quote Lombardi, you seek perfection in the hopes that you'll get to excellence.
Mistakes?
Absolutely.
When they break the law, let the Justice Department, let your local DA come in and take action.
Well, that's been a problem as well, that many local DAs fail to prosecute violent crimes.
They do, which is why we see a rise in violent crime in many cities that are run by elected officials like this.
Mr. Hughes, what's the feeling when you hear elected officials and other people talk about doxing law enforcement or actually doxing law enforcement or giving their position away?
What's the feeling there?
Well, doxing, as we know, has become a huge problem and is one of the reasons that the face coverings are being used now.
It really has opened up a lot of law enforcement and their families to threats.
And that is a problem.
Think about yourself.
If we, me, being a law enforcement officer, if you were a law enforcement officer or had a child or a spouse who was in law enforcement and that was going on, that would incense anybody, I think, and would make you think twice about the face coverings as well, as if you had a different opinion, because that could protect it as well with the doxing.
Can you give us the operational reasons that the face coverings are used in addition to the prevention of doxing for their safety or their personal safety, their families?
Well, besides doxing, we used face coverings just for operational purposes, especially when we did execution of warrants and things like that for protection, for protection.
So that's outside that would be in a particular operational setting.
Tactics, techniques, and procedures that are designed to keep the officers safe.
Yes.
It's just disgusting to see the destruction and the complete pushback on the rule of law.
And, you know, whether it's violence that's perpetrated against law enforcement, those that are wearing the uniforms, whether it's doxing, whether it's colleagues who say you don't have to follow orders, you don't have to follow orders of the commander-in-chief.
It's a really sad situation that we find ourselves in.
We thank you for the work that you do.
We thank those that wear the uniform that serve in these dangerous situations, and I yield back.
Let's talk about the rule of law, and let's talk about what is actually going on in our country with civil immigration enforcement.
I want to be very clear and upfront.
I was a prosecutor for the Department of Justice for 10 years.
I worked alongside law enforcement officers from every federal agency, including the Department of Homeland Security, some of the most patriotic and brave individuals who absolutely represented the very, very best of our country.
And frankly, it is that experience that has made me so upset about what we are seeing on the streets of the United States.
Mr. Thompson, in your opening statement, you said that these agents wake up, they put on their uniform, they put on their star, and they do their job with civility.
The problem is that's not the case.
They don't put on a uniform.
They don't wear identification.
And they go out with masks on to violently, in many cases, arrest unsuspecting immigrants, nonviolent, many of whom are actually here legally.
So let's take a little bit of a look of the other side of the perspective and roll a video, please.
Now that last clip was from 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan in my district.
The individual, the officer, was immediately suspended when the Department of Homeland Security said that conduct is unacceptable and not representative of ICE.
Three days later, he was reinstated.
I referred that case to the United States Attorney's Office because if we are talking about prosecuting assaults, that's one that seems like it might be prosecuted.
We've gotten no word.
And the reason why this is dangerous is that force is obviously unnecessary.
There are no people, no women, no old men, no pellet guns necessary in that, what we saw on those videos.
There are circumstances, and let's be very clear, where protesters or others are acting violently, breaking the law.
They should be charged.
But that does not mean that it gives ICE a license to use excessive force whenever they want.
And the problem with these masked, unidentified, plainclothes officers is not just something that you hear from this side of the aisle.
It is not something at all you hear from that side of the aisle.
But it is something that you hear from the FBI itself and the Director Kash Patel, who wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security urging ICE officers to stop walking around with masks in plain clothes and unidentified because numerous crimes are being committed by others,
criminals, imitating ICE officers, including in my district, where a man approached a woman, said he was an immigration officer, and then directed her to a nearby stairwell where he punched her, tried to rape her, and stole her phone before she was able to get away.
That is why I've introduced the No Secret Police Act.
Our law enforcement agents should not be masked.
And we hear about this number 1,000% of threats now that have been raised.
The data shows there's a 25% increase of charged assaults against law enforcement officers.
That is too much.
That is not okay.
There's obviously a dramatic increase in operations, but we should not have in this country our law enforcement agents walking around in secret using excessive force like that.
You all, I know, agree that.
We don't need secret police in this country.
All the criminal law enforcement agents wear masks, as you say, for operational.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on how anti-law enforcement rhetoric fuels violence against officers.
I want to thank you also to the panel for showing up today.
I also want to point out that Mr. Goldman was just talking to Mr. Thompson about how these agents get up every day and they're not putting on uniforms.
And then he showed several videos and I want to point out that 90% of the law enforcement officers in those videos were, in fact, wearing uniforms.
Now I want to pivot to you, Mr. Hodges.
In your opening testimony today, I want to read through some of the transcript that you provided the committee.
You said, I've been on the receiving end of threats and violence due to the work I've done in the name of the law.
And then you say on the second page, the fact of the matter is that right now in the United States of America, there is a secret police force abducting people based on the color of their skin.
So you don't think that our law enforcement officers are going out and trying to arrest people who are here illegally that are also have been convicted of crimes.
And it's funny because you say in your testimony that I've been on the receiving end of threats and violence due to the work I've done in the name of the law, yet you're sitting here and you're saying that these law enforcement officers, you're fueling the same rhetoric, and now people are going to come after them for that.
I know it's not easy to put on a badge, but I can't believe you would sit here and say that.
You would complain about the treatment that you've received because of the work that you've done in the name of the law.
And then you have the audacity to come in here and say that these men and women, federal law enforcement officers, are going out there abducting people because of the color of their skin?
It's funny because I got a buddy of mine who doesn't have the same color of skin that I have, who's texting me right now during this hearing, watching you.
The guy worked in the Border Patrol for a long time, and he told me, texting me, that's a slap in the face to all of us who go out there and fight against cartels and criminals each and every day.
You're trying to make it about color of skin.
And we all know at the end of the day, there are so many law enforcement officers, great law enforcement officers that represent all of our communities that have every color of skin out there.
They pray to different gods, and they're just trying to do their job.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, gives the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, broad authority over immigration enforcement, detention, and removal.
DHS agencies like ICE, CBP, US, CIS exercise powers delegated under the INA, including arresting, detaining, interrogating, and removing non-citizens who are in violation of immigration laws.
That's exactly what they're doing.
They are actually carrying out the laws that we pass in this country.
That's pathetic, man.
I want to play a video.
You guys got my video?
Anybody?
Now, obviously, we're sitting in here talking about rhetoric and how it fuels violence against officers.
For you guys that represent so many officers around the country, what do you think it means?
to people that are out there watching and listening, watching social media, watching the news, and they see a member of Congress who sits on this committee go out there and behave like that.
Go ahead, Mr. Thompson.
unidentified
I'm appalled.
I'm disappointed.
I believe it's beneath the dignity of this body, this committee, and membership to it.
And quite honestly, I find it reprehensible, and it's obviously dangerous.
Well, let me step back for a second and say that I think that today's hearing should be titled, When Badges Become Shields, How Department of Homeland Security Agents, Violations of Our Rights, Fuel Distrust and Anger.
To suggest that DHS agents are professional law enforcement officers bound by the same oversight on accountability is ridiculous.
You see, law enforcement officers, they go through vetting before training.
But new ICE recruits are irresponsibly being accelerated from vetting to training and are only dismissed if DHS finds out about the, retroactively acts on information about their failed drug tests, about their criminal backgrounds, or other requirements that they have failed.
Law enforcement officers are required to wear badges.
They show their faces and they identify themselves.
But DHS agents, they use anonymity to terrorize our communities and to violate our rights.
There are mechanisms for law enforcement officers to be held accountable by the public, investigated, and disciplined.
And those mechanisms are in place for the safety of the officers and the American people.
But DHS agents, they reject accountability.
They disregard court orders, and they violate consent decrees.
Bottom line, DHS agents lie.
They act with impunity.
They reject checks and balances, and they ignore Congress and the courts.
The American people's anger and tolerance of DHS violations of our rights, that's what's the result of DHS unlawful, unaccountable, unconstitutional actions, which put the American people and our liberties at risk every day.
Let me be very clear.
The Department of Homeland Security, you can quote me on that, is the single biggest threat to public safety right now.
You see, DHS agents are using chemical weapons, as you've seen already on footage, on protesters and bystanders by at least 49 times across 18 incidents in Chicago and the suburbs since October 1st.
Since U.S. District Court Judge Ellis issued an order forbidding federal agents from using riot-controlled weapons on November 6th, federal agents used chemical weapons at least four times later, including two cases where agents appeared to fire pepper spray into a moving car, possibly violating both the injunction and Border Patrol rules restricting chemical weapons used on motorists.
Greg Bovino and the DHS claimed that he had been hit by a rock in the head before throwing a tear gas.
But thankfully, there was video footage and the evidence disproves it.
And he ultimately admitted he was not hit until after he threw the tear gas.
Look, the government alleged that Marimar Martinez used her car to assault and impede federal law enforcement.
But then federal prosecutors themselves filed a motion to dismiss their own case.
Why?
Because while she didn't assault the agents, they did shoot her five times, and then they went on and they bragged about it.
And you know why rank-and-file agents think that they're above the law within ICE, within the Department of Homeland Security?
You know why?
Because their leadership, Christy Noam, they think that they're above the law.
DHS leadership lies.
They act with impunity.
They reject checks and balances.
And they ignore Congress and the courts.
You know, people keep asking us around the country why is it that DHS is allowed to behave this way?
Well, the truth is that DHS was intentionally established with an overbroad mission and unchecked power.
And Republicans, many of them in this room right now, expanded that unaccountable power with a blank check and unlimited personnel.
Why?
To terrorize people, to violate their rights.
Because fear is a point.
But nothing that DHS is doing is making us any safer.
And Americans are done.
We're done.
We're seeing through the lie.
And we're saying enough is enough.
And DHS has to be held accountable.
And Congress has a responsibility of oversight.
It is why, Chairman, I move to subpoena Gregory Bovino to come before this committee to answer for his actions.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to clause 2K6 of Rule 11.1, I move that the committee subpoena Gregory Bavino.
Also, while you're doing that, I'd like to also enter into the record a letter demanding that Christy Noam resign, and it's an updated letter for December 3rd.
And then one of my colleagues on the other side had the audacity to claim that homeland security was the biggest threat to our country and to our safety.
That pisses me off.
That is reckless.
That is dangerous.
Our border was wide open.
The Biden administration was allowing us to be invaded by murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, child traffickers.
And if an ICE agent needs to wear a mask to protect his or her family, then so be it.
Everyone who's here illegally, in my book, should be deported.
Mask or no mask.
They're here in violation of the law.
But my colleagues on the other side, with their dangerous and feckless comments, fail to acknowledge the fact that our country is more secure today than it was previously.
In fact, if you look at the trend lines for shootings against officers, they're down compared to 2023.
And praise the Lord, and hopefully it will remain.
Mr. Hughes, you wrote the federal agents are now relocating their families, altering daily routines, and reducing their public presence because of targeted harassment.
That is extraordinary.
Agents having to uproot their families, literally having to change routines because of rhetoric, because of dangerous comments.
Look, it's a tough job.
I come from a family of cops.
My granddad retired from Nashville PD before it was actually Metro.
My uncle was a cop.
My cousin was a cop.
I had the privilege of serving the Sheriff's Department for two years before I went into politics.
My very first call was an Army Ranger with PTSD who had a knife.
Fortunately, I was able to put a countertop between myself until, quite frankly, more experienced officers were able to arrive and talk him down.
And he put down the knife and we got him help.
Every day, you put yourself in harm's way.
And so what we should be doing is thanking our men and women in blue, our first responders, for doing a tough job.
Mr. Hughes, I have a list of questions, but I'm going to give you the floor for a moment.
I want you to talk about how dangerous the current state is because of politics and because of irresponsible comments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that quite frankly are putting your lives in danger.
unidentified
Thank you, Congressman.
Thank you for your service as a police officer.
And those who are police officers, we understand.
And what do we say when we're thanked for things?
Usually, I'm just doing my job.
And those of us who aren't police officers, we know somebody or have family members, and we want them to be protected, our family to be protected, our mothers, fathers, spouses, children.
And when we get the anti-law enforcement rhetoric fueling the violence, that's unacceptable.
I think that we could all agree on that basic premise that any anti-law enforcement rhetoric should be bad because we are the ones that are out there enforcing the laws, the laws that Congress makes and the laws that are on the books.
And we are charged with abiding by the rule of law and executing our duties and our oath to uphold the rule of law.
And we are just in an environment that is so toxic we need to get back to.
I want to take a moment to thank our witnesses for their service.
Each of you has answered a call to protect your communities, oftentimes at risk of your own life.
And to that, we owe you a debt of gratitude.
I'd like to take a moment to recognize Officer Hodges for his heroic actions on January 6th, defending the very Capitol complex that we're currently sitting in.
Thank you for being here, for your defense of our nation and our liberty, and for being there on that dark day and for speaking out about it since.
Additionally, I want to acknowledge the tragic shooting of two National Guard members last week, Sarah Bextrom and Andrew Wolfe.
Our hearts are broken, and our nation is grieving.
My heart is with Army Special Beckstrom's family during this devastating time of loss, and I'm praying for Staff Sergeant Wolfe as he recovers from this censeless act.
Every day, law enforcement officers willingly and heroically place their lives and their families' futures at risk.
They keep our communities safe, promote the regular flow of people and goods, and protect the public from the dangers of everything from gun violence to acts of terrorism, working best when they're closely intertwined and connected with the communities and people they serve.
Let me be very clear: any violence, including attacks against our state, local, and federal law enforcement officers, cannot and will not be tolerated.
In my district, a mass shooting on May 14, 2022, by a white supremacist, racist, terrorist killed 10 New Yorkers, including Lieutenant Aaron Salter Jr., a retired 30-year veteran of the Buffalo Police Department who made the ultimate sacrifice defending our community.
My community is just one of many that have lost dedicated public servants in the line of duty.
Across administrations, we've seen an uptick in both the number of officers who've experienced assault while on the job, as well as those brave souls who've tragically been killed.
However, what's changed with this administration is the escalation by President Trump himself, creating dangerous, even lethal situations for both law enforcement officers and the people they protect.
Democrats have warned time and time again of the dangers of this violent rhetoric coming from a president who picks and chooses when to support officers based on whether or not it suits him.
If it's to terrorize communities and detain American citizens, this president throws his full weight behind law enforcement.
But if it's to prevent the toppling of the world's greatest democracy and the safety of our citizens, this president stands behind insurrectionists and even pardons convicted drug lords and other convicted criminals rather than standing behind the brave law enforcement officers protecting our communities in the peaceful transfer of power.
Furthermore, President Trump is defunding the police, systematically undermining public safety as we know it.
And while he's making inflammatory statements insinuating the need to execute members of Congress, he's canceling counterterrorism grant programs designed to support state and local police, unleashing unnecessary and violent ICE raids in peaceful communities and residential neighborhoods, degrading and neglecting critical homeland security missions, proposing to slash budgets for the FBI,
ATF, and DEA, and has done nothing to combat the scourge of guns on our streets that injure officers every single day.
Taken as a whole, Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, his own unwillingness to follow the law, and his failed policies undermine officers' safety and threaten the very communities they protect and serve.
Officer Hodges, you defended the Capitol on January 6th and suffered severe injuries at the hands of an individual who's now free thanks to President Trump's pardon.
What kind of message is the president sending to individuals looking to carry out violence against law enforcement personnel?
unidentified
Pardoning people who assaulted myself and my colleagues who attacked the Capitol, tells them that they can do it again, that they can do it with impunity, that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
And unfortunately, that message is received loud and clear.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for five minutes of questions.
unidentified
Great.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, everybody, for being here today.
You know, this committee used to be a committee that would talk about policy, and now I feel like all we do is talk about politics.
There's enough politics in this town.
I'm going to use my time to talk about some policy.
In the city of San Antonio, just recently, ICE, the ICE facility there, had a package delivered with white substance, right, as an intimidation factor to try to bully ICE to not do their job.
I think it's absolutely sickening and it's ultimately dangerous.
My question to you, Mr. Hughes, what can we do to continue to support ICE agents, whether it's, you know, in particularly ICE agents?
Is there anything we can do as lawmakers to show that we support the rule of law?
Thank you, Congressman.
Look, the polarization you referred to is just unprecedented.
And we're in really a hard time right now where we really need to bring it back and really look for answers together.
That said, there are many recommendations that we made, Flioa made, in looking at enhancing 18 USC 111 or 18USC 912, other bipartisan bills like Protect and Serve Act, Back to Blue, and Blue Shield Privacy Act.
We need to be looking together, a bipartisan way to come up with protections for ICE and others so that they can do their jobs in an effective way in protecting us and defending the rule of law.
Wonderful.
Thank you for that.
And I agree with you.
We need to tone down the rhetoric and we need to bring more solutions to help things.
If you have policy discussions, let's have those policy discussions, but let's not blame the men and women that are executing the policy that we're making here in Congress.
My next question is for Mr. Thompson.
Sheriffs, I love my sheriffs.
They run things in my district, right?
Sheriffs like Ronnie Dodson and Thad Cleveland out in West Texas, Randy Brown, tallest sheriff you ever meet in your life, just doing amazing stuff.
I've done a lot of ride-alongs with these sheriffs.
I mean, they're on the front lines.
I view them as frontline leaders.
My question for you is on these task forces.
I'm a big fan of task forces.
I think the anti-gang and anti-terrorism task force, task force, often led by DHS or FBI, I think those work.
I've spent a lot of money, or I spent a lot of time and energy making sure that those work.
In your opinion, what is your thoughts on these anti-gang terrorism or task forces and the role that sheriffs should be playing?
Thank you for the question, sir.
I appreciate it.
Two thoughts.
One, task forces have been around for decades.
They go back to organized crime days of the 30s and even further back in many ways.
They are around because they do work.
It brings together a team approach, a holistic approach to responding to either perceived crime, actual crime, or the recovery from crime.
So they do work and they have the.
I want to make one point.
Crime in this country has changed.
It's much more sophisticated than it's ever been.
The cartels have more money, more time, more interest in doing what they do.
That's why, in my estimation, I think the President did do the right thing by designating the cartels as terrorist groups.
The point I'm making, though, is that for this committee, especially, I think we all need to recognize that with the sophistication and the breadth and absolute indoctrination into our country of these cartels, we have to do things differently.
We have to do them vastly differently.
We need a greater sense of urgency on cybersecurity.
You saw that in my testimony.
We need to invest in that, especially in these smaller agencies.
Number two, I think we have to recognize that with these task forces are going to come some pains, some growing pains and some changes.
So we all have to recognize, and I'm hearing that from all of my sheriffs, is that we need to be helpful, whether it's a small agency in the rural part of the country or a large agency.
We're going to have to be a little bit more flexible as we look at things.
Thank you so much, Chairman, and thank you to our ranking member and to our witnesses for joining us today.
Thank you for serving our communities.
Specifically to you, Mr. Hodges, I am just in awe to see you here today.
And I want to thank you for your service, specifically for protecting this very institution.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Crane had to run out of here for my comments, but I want to apologize to you for his comments because for him to have the audacity to be disrespectful to you, giving your honorable service to protecting this very body is a shame.
Republicans only have respect for law enforcement that supports their political agenda.
That is a given here that we see all the time.
There's no shocker to anyone on this committee and definitely no shocker to me that yet another hearing, I live rent-free space in Mr. Crane's head over and over again while he's obsessing about me doing my job of oversight while he continues to fail to do his job to service the people of Arizona.
While there, there's a detention center that had deaths there.
And yet to this day, Mr. Crane refuses to have oversight and go there and visit that detention center.
But steady worrying about me here doing my job, then using the power that his constituents have given him by electing him to do his job.
Before I begin into my comments about this specific hearing, I want to take a moment to honor the National Guard officer who tragically lost her life in the horrific shooting last week and to extend my prayers to the guardsman who is still fighting for his life.
Their bravery reminds us of the tremendous risk our service members take every single day.
We have all seen the National Guard deploy into communities not to support law enforcement missions, but to wander down residential streets, help with yard work just outside the Capitol, or simply serve as a political scenery.
Now, 500 more guardsmen are being sent into Washington, D.C. because this administration is choosing optics over strategy and politics over safety.
These people should not be placed in harm's way to serve as props in the president's twisted agenda.
But my colleagues across the aisle didn't call this hearing to talk about solutions.
They aren't interested in those.
What they are trying to do is point fingers so they can deflect blame.
They want to convince the American people that Democratic rhetoric is the issue.
It is not Democrats who are praising, let alone pardoning, people who stormed this very Capitol complex to beat police officers and hunt down elected officials.
It is Donald Trump who pardoned more than 1,500 January 6th rioters.
I hope we can all agree, as we keep saying out of our mouths here, that any form of violence is unacceptable.
Show me.
Say it.
Gun violence continues to threaten our communities and the officers sworn to protect them.
And we should be focused on real solutions rooted in public safety.
But I do not want to hear selective, phony outrage about rhetoric from people who only sometimes, when it's beneficial to them, want to protect law enforcement.
Let's not forget as violence threats surged across this country, the Trump administration froze billions of dollars to counterterrorism and nonprofit security grant funds, the very money meant to protect synagogues, mobs, churches, and even HBCUs and other community institutions.
Republicans stood by silently as their own administration stripped away critical protections from grantees they now care, they now claim to care about.
So when Republicans sit here today and try to lecture anyone about supporting the rule of law and those who work to uphold it, the hypocrisy is alarming.
They have repeatedly proposed cuts to the very agencies that keep officers and communities safe.
They have embraced violent rhetoric from their leader, rhetoric that includes open calls for the murder of political opponents.
They have abandoned the officers who defended this Capitol on January 6th and instead wrapped their arms around the people who attacked them.
In Nork, my district, violent crime has gone down by 23% because we invested in real community-based intervention, trauma-informed crisis response, and real community policing.
When we talk about real action, we see real results.
On the other hand, political stunts, military deployed on American city streets, mass ICE agents tearing through communities, these things make us unsafe.
In my district, we choose trust over terror, partnership over provocation, and the results speak for themselves.
So let's do some real work on this committee and let's leave here with some solutions, not just comments and statements every week.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Our brave law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to uphold our laws and protect Americans.
We deserve every tool and protection necessary to carry out their mission safely and effectively without fear of being targeted simply for doing their job.
Mr. Hughes, DHS has reported an 8,000% increase in threats, doxing, and direct attacks against federal law enforcement.
In Alabama, we felt the impact of rising violence.
We've lost dedicated law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice.
What do you think is driving this escalation and how has it changed the way officers approach their daily duties?
unidentified
Thank you, Congressman.
What is really alarming, I think, to a lot of us is the normalization of this anti-rhetoric.
We have to understand that police officers are enforcing the laws.
They're enforcing the laws that this body makes and that the elected officials make.
And when we have that anti-rhetoric on law enforcement officers, it just fuels the fire.
A lot of it's social media.
We see social media that puts out information that isn't necessarily true all the time, and it just fuels the flames and it makes the violence against police officers seem normal.
It's not right.
It's against the law, and we need to do something about it.
I want to shift briefly to the intelligence side of this because when we see coordinated ambushes and targeted attacks, it raises serious questions about prevention.
Mr. Hughes, are there specific intelligence sharing gaps between federal, state, and local agencies that make it harder to detect or prevent coordinated attacks against officers?
unidentified
You know, after 9-11, we're supposed to really be filling these gaps with intelligence and sharing of information.
But we need more.
We need better sharing of information.
We need to be sharing information, federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, to make sure that all law enforcement has the information to make informed decisions.
That's what you all do.
That's what we need to do as well.
If we are missing pieces of information, that will affect the operational effectiveness.
Turning to our state and local partners, we're hearing that this isn't just a federal challenge.
It's hitting sheriff's deputies, local police across the country.
Mr. Thompson, are you seeing a measurable recruitment or retention impact at the local level as a result of these threats and the more hostile talks around policing?
unidentified
We are indeed.
I know of several agencies, sheriff's offices, PDs as well, that are short bodies in the neighborhood of 40, 45 percent, some even higher.
Let's remember, smaller agencies are always even more difficultly confronted with these challenges.
You have tenant deputies and you lose three people.
The time to replace those is it's months, months to get that done.
Exponential Growth in Leaked Info00:02:14
unidentified
It's happening on an increased pace.
We're seeing it slow a bit, but it's still very, very bad.
I was the chairman of the Madison County Commission, and I can tell you this right here: what we did to solve some of these problems was we doubled the size of law enforcement in our county.
It made a substantial difference.
I know that Representative Gonzalez mentioned about bulletproof vehicles.
I bought two, what are known as bear cats for our community, and I can tell you this right here.
It worked for our sheriff's department.
It will work for other law enforcement throughout this country.
It is a very good investment to save lives.
Rather than having to go through a door, you've got the ability to use less than lethal options by using tear gas inside that, make them come out, and it works.
You start looking at all the different things that you do, and these working together is what makes law enforcement safer.
But I will say another area I'm concerned about is the way technology is now weaponizing against law enforcement, not just against officers themselves, but also against their families.
We're seeing unauthorized tracking tools and online platforms that publicize officers' location in real time.
On top of that, we've seen officers' home addresses, their children's school locations, and even family photos posted online in coordination with doxing campaigns.
My question to you is: Are you seeing that at each of your levels?
I'll start with you, Mr. Thompson.
unidentified
We are seeing it.
It's an exponential growth in the public release of privileged information.
Law enforcement PII is considered privileged information in nearly every state, but nevertheless, we're seeing it.
It's growing radically, and it's having a devastating, devastating effect.
I want to begin by echoing the sentiments of my colleagues that violence is never the answer and that we all must hold our own accountable.
And we're here today to discuss how violent actions and rhetoric fuels the problems that we're having in this country.
And I want to respond to a couple things because what is striking me is this incredible hypocrisy of this conversation, which is no one, no one in this committee, no one in this Congress condones violence against our law enforcement.
No one at all.
And any insinuation that we are encouraging violence against law enforcement is just outrageous and should not be tolerated.
But I think what we're also seeing here is a silence of people who are refusing to criticize ICE agents in particular who are going outside of their authority and abusing their power in a violent way against American citizens.
And there is silence on the condemnation of that.
I haven't heard anyone in this panel, except for maybe Officer Hodges, criticize that.
I think part of the problem is, you know, I am a big fan of Dallas Police Department.
I have worked closely with them.
I'm so supportive of them.
And I agree with the comments that we need to double down to keep our law enforcement safe.
It is outrageous to me, this indignation that we're having by Republicans who have voted to consistently defund efforts that keep officers safe, as many of my colleagues have pointed out.
And addressing gun violence, for example.
More officers are killed in gun violence and mass shootings that have nothing to do with a predisposition against ICE.
But yet we're not talking about that.
But that is a direct threat to the safety of law enforcement.
And what we see here, though, is we have bad cops and we have bad ICE agents.
And right now the American public has a laser focus on some of these ICE agents who are exercising their authority and their power in a very abusive and uncontrolled way.
I was going to offer a video today of a gentleman who is an American citizen who's 79 years old, whose business was targeted in a raid, and he was trying to show the valid papers of his employees.
Instead, he was tackled and ramshackled to the ground in a very violent way, fracturing his ribs, giving him a brain injury as an American citizen who did not one thing wrong.
And I think what we're really missing here in this conversation is that ICE agents are frequently acting with a lack of probable cause.
To the point of, I think, one of the conversations that you said, Mr. Hodges, is that when you erode the rule of law, you erode the confidence in law enforcement.
And we've had a complete erosion of the enforcement of probable cause for law enforcement to engage in an arrest and to engage in an activity and an experience with a member of the public.
And that is a problem.
And we have to address that too.
And what you're seeing is a public outcry and an outrage.
And maybe Gestapo is not the right word.
Maybe Nazi is not the right word.
But you have to acknowledge that there is a pulse of the American people right now that are scared and they're terrified because we have members of our law enforcement community who are there to protect, serve and protect, who are instead harassing and intimidating and they're not being reined in by their own agency.
And that has to be part of this discussion.
And because until then, it's all of it.
The violence is unacceptable.
We should never tolerate doxing.
We should never tolerate assault on any of our men and women who bravely serve.
But at the same time, we can't also allow the rogueness of some of these members who have let this power go too far and abuse it.
And that has to be part of this conversation.
And unfortunately, I'm out of time and I must yield back.
I now recognize the gentle lady from South Carolina.
Ms. Biggs for five minutes of questions.
unidentified
Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairman Garberino.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I'm deeply saddened by the attack that happened to the two National Guard members very near the White House last week.
As someone who currently wears the uniform as a Guard member actively serving, it kind of hits close to home for me.
My heart's with their families, and as a mother, I can't imagine what they're going through during this Christmas and holiday season.
It's very sad.
And also to the fellow service members, imagining what they're going through at the loss of a peer.
However, what happened last week, it's only one incident in a growing pattern of attack on those that keep our streets safe throughout the nation.
Many incidents are just loan actors, just individuals, but many are not.
In June, NGOs handed out protest kits.
That included goggles and face shields and gloves at the Los Angeles riots.
In July, alleged Antifa members attacked an ICE facility in Texas where 11 were arrested and several face terrorism charges now.
Activists created platforms like ICE List, ICE Block, and Stop ICE allow anyone, anyone, to track ICE activity as they enforce the law.
Gangs like the Latin Kings have even placed hits and tiered bounties on ICE and CBP agents.
These actions represent a growing ecosystem of threats against those that are hired to keep our country safe.
With that in mind, I'd like to ask Mr. Hughes the first question.
How do pockets of organized resistance from various groups raise national tensions and make it even more difficult to restore law and order?
Thank you, Congresswoman.
Peaceful protests are a pillar of our democracy, right?
It's something that we need to be respectful of.
It's when it goes outside the parameters of peaceful protests.
And when we see that, it's very dangerous.
It's very dangerous not only to the officers, but it's dangerous to society as a whole, to our social fabric itself.
Peaceful protests are good.
When it resorts to violence, we lose our sense of who we are.
It hurts people.
Thank you.
What do you feel like, as a member of Congress, that can be done at the federal level to prevent this?
What can the people in this room on both sides, what can we do to help that?
Again, I go back to enhancing the law.
Look, law enforcement officers are there to enforce the law, the laws of what you all enact.
And if you can look at ways to enhance 18 USC 111, 9-12, and look at other bills that are there or come up with other bipartisan bills to protect the officers and even protests, right, then I think we would be better off as a society.
Thank you.
My second question is: how do activists and NGOs provide cover, legitimacy, and support for the violent attacks of terrorist groups like Antifa and gangs like the Latin Kings?
And does this encourage escalation in tactics and violence?
And I'll open that up to anyone to answer.
You know, it's a reality.
It is happening.
The NGOs that were funded in the prior administration, not to be partisan about this, did some things that were dangerous, to put it lightly.
We have to admit that there's a divide.
There's a divide.
There are some that are saying no one should be exempt from any law enforcement actions relative to immigration, for example.
And there's some on the other side that say everybody should be.
But my point in this is that we cannot look to non-governmental organizations to put thumbs on the scales when given taxpayer monies.
I find the lack of bipartisanship on this issue deeply concerning because I think it's completely possible and logical to be able to hold two ideas at the same time, that most protests are peaceful and that most law enforcement officers are law-abiding, patriotic American citizens out to do their job and fulfill their duty.
And they have my unequivocal support.
I come from Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico is a high crime jurisdiction.
We've had many law enforcement officers fall in the line of duty for reasons completely unrelated to politics.
And every time it happens, the whole island unites behind them in full support, in full solidarity, in absolute sympathy with their families as victims of crime.
Now, I believe in holding people accountable.
I think that's an essence of law enforcement.
It's what prevents crime from becoming worse.
And so when officers fall in the line of duty, I think it's crucial that we hold the people who committed those crimes accountable.
When officers are assaulted in the line of duty, I think it's critical that we hold those people who committed those crimes accountable.
But accountability is a two-way street.
And so I am worried that in our defense of law enforcement, we are letting the few, the very few, the incredibly few, and I want to emphasize that point, that fail go without any sort of accountability.
So for example, like when ICE picked up Aracelis in Cabuarojo, someone who was legally in Puerto Rico, and took her all the way to Texas without being able to contact her lawyer, I should be held accountable.
When ICE agents shoved a pregnant woman and she fell down during a raid, putting her unborn child at risk, those ICE agents should be held accountable.
When Far right activists attacked Capitol police officers on January 6th.
They should be held accountable, and pardoning them is not holding them accountable.
I regret generalizations, and I think calls to defund the police and categorical statements towards police officers and law enforcement agencies tend to do more harm than good.
But we cannot ignore the necessity and the importance of accountability.
And speaking of accountability, you know, this administration has illegally frozen and canceled key public safety grants.
And in my district, one of those affected entities is Tayer Salut, an entity dedicated solely to community-based violence intervention that collaborates with law enforcement to strengthen public safety.
And Tayer Salud, which works to reduce violent crime, support victims, and strengthen coordination with law enforcement, faced a $2 million cut in their community violence intervention program grant this year.
And without this funding, the ability of local partners to prevent violence, to support survivors, and to serve high-risk populations, especially women and children, has been severely undermined.
So in July, I sent a letter urging the DOJ to reinstate this funding.
But although DOJ has not responded, I will continue pushing for answers and for the restoration of this essential funding.
So my questions are pretty straightforward, and I hope they can find some cross- or bipartisan support to all witnesses, to all of you here.
How will reducing the grants and money awarded to state and local law enforcement officers hurt their efforts to keep our communities safe?
Start with Mr. Hughes.
unidentified
So, Congressman, thank you.
Thank you for the question.
And like you spoke about accountability, and accountability is essential in everything that we do.
Because once we lose that accountability, we lose the public trust, we lose the strength in the institutions.
We need to have the accountability.
And I'll say also that nobody, nobody should be going outside the law.
No law enforcement officer, nobody.
And hopefully there's no debate on that.
We all have to act in accordance with the law.
And if we don't, we should be held accountable.
So we need to be working as a body here to ensure that the laws reflect that and we're providing the protections and the strengthening of the laws to do that.
Gun Crime and Law Enforcement00:15:49
unidentified
And then the law enforcement officers can act accordingly.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie, for five minutes of questions.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you that are here representing law enforcement across the country.
We appreciate your bravery and dedication to our communities that you exhibit every single day to keep our communities and our country safe.
So can't thank you enough for everything that you and those that you represent do.
I have two different categories of questions.
First, I'd like to talk about immigration law and enforcing immigration law in our communities.
And then secondly, we'd like to talk about the horrific actions against our law enforcement officers that we've seen in rising numbers recently.
So in the first category of enforcing immigration law, I'd like to go to Mr. Hughes.
Millions of illegal aliens have entered our country for numbers of years during the Biden-Harris administration, many of whom disappeared into communities with no monitoring or accountability across our country.
And so my question is, what potential threats do they continue to pose to American communities if these individuals are not caught and investigated?
And what should we be doing to continue to round up those violent, illegal immigrants who are in our local communities?
Thank you, Congressman.
And I think it's important.
We always have to be looking at the violent criminals and those who pose a threat to our communities.
And we need to be looking at the support to do that.
The support from this body and the support of the administration and support of others to be able to fight violent crime and to ensure that we're enforcing the laws that are on the books.
It's the officers that are on the ground who are enforcing the law.
They're not making the law.
If the law needs to be changed, that's Congress's job.
We need to make sure that we're enforcing and bringing violent criminals to justice.
With the increased in funding that this body, Congress, has approved recently for those efforts, do you feel that you have adequate resources to go out and do the job that you need to do?
That's yet to be determined.
The resources are given.
It's being utilized, and it's hard for me to comment on that.
I'm not an active law enforcement officer, but that's soon to come.
We could always use more resources.
Understood, and certainly agree with that.
That's why I continue to support increased funding, both here in Congress and for our local law enforcement back home, and understand that need and want to continue to work to provide appropriate funding to make sure that we keep our communities safe.
Next, Mr. Yost, with the fraternal order of police, first, I'd like to commend your organization.
We have a terrific Pennsylvania FOP led by Joseph Regan, local chapters that are fantastic in all of our local communities.
They do great work in representing their membership and also law enforcement in our communities.
And so I want to commend you and make sure that we get that on the record as well.
We have seen this increased rhetoric, this anti-police rhetoric.
There was the defund the police movement.
Thankfully, I think even those that espouse those beliefs have come to recognize that was maybe the dumbest political thing that they could have ever said.
So they have backed off of that and they have started to change their tune.
They've come around and woken up to the realization that we need law enforcement in our local communities.
But that rhetoric has damaged our law enforcement capabilities.
When I talk to our local law enforcement, they say that they are challenged to find people that want to fill these jobs.
Recruitment is down, retention is down.
Talk to me about what you're seeing and experiencing in recruiting new members, retaining those people, and how you're addressing those issues.
Council, thank you for the question.
And you are correct.
We do have a very strong membership in Pennsylvania.
We actually got our birth there 110 years ago, so that's where the fraternal police was started.
So it is very near and dear to me.
You know, you bring up a very good point.
We went through this period where we had discussions about defunding police.
We needed to take power away and take resources away from law enforcement officers somehow thinking it was going to make better communities.
And you're right.
We have moved past that.
I think most recognize that if you want to have an impact on law enforcement, you ask a law enforcement officer because they do it every single day.
So, when we have discussions on how we improve the criminal justice system and exclude a very important part of that, you're going to have results.
I call them failed experiments because we know if you let you have everyone sit at the table having these discussions on how to improve it, you're going to have problems.
So, we went through this whole defunding period where we did so much damage to law enforcement.
While we might have moved on from the whole concept of defunding law enforcement, what we did is we made it less appealing.
So, we have a recruiting problem.
I'll argue with it.
We don't have a recruiting and retention problem.
We have a retention and recruiting problem because the best recruiters we have are the people at our law enforcement officers who recognize somebody within a community and say, you have the qualities that we need within our community.
Why don't you come help us shape the future of our community?
That's how they got into law enforcement.
They didn't get into law enforcement because they saw a commercial on TV and said, join my agency or some slick ad.
No, they got in because of a personal connection of somebody that reached out to them.
We've made our jobs so less appealing to people that we're dealing with a problem.
And here's the problem with it: it is almost generational, because you can't hire an officer today and expect him to be an effective officer for probably five, six years.
So, every time we have somebody walking out the door, know that it is not easy to fill that position.
Well, again, I want to thank you.
The people that are in law enforcement in our local communities, by and large, do a terrific job every single day.
We commend them, we thank them.
They're our friends in our local communities that keep us safe.
But the anti-law enforcement rhetoric that we've heard from DFUN theories.
Women's times in that's past what is going on against ICE agents.
First, let me open by stating that violence against law enforcement officers is reprehensible.
I commend, condemn, pardon me, condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Our brave law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep our communities safe.
As lawmakers, we must have their back.
At the same time, law enforcement officers who are acting outside the bounds of the law need to be held accountable.
These bad actors undermine the good work that officers do and create distrust in our communities.
We need to balance these needs so that we can stop the actions that are terrorizing our communities, families, and children.
We need to ensure oversight, while at the same time, we need to provide our officers with the funding and tools they need to keep us safe.
I am proud that two of my bills do this and have earned the endorsement of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association testifying here today.
One bill, the LEO Fair Retirement Act, would address the retirement cliff for law enforcement that helps prioritize recruiting and retaining officers.
I have also prioritized bringing federal dollars back to my district to equip law enforcement ahead of the World Cup.
Now, like most Americans, I was appalled by this administration's decision to pardon more than 1,500 violent criminals who took part in the January 6th attack on law enforcement and the American democracy.
On January 6, 2021, law enforcement defended this building against a violent mob.
114 Capitol police were beaten and assaulted.
Five officers tragically lost their lives.
One of the officers who lost their life was New Jersey native Brian Sicknick.
I am also very concerned by this administration's budget proposal, which seeks deep cuts to the FBI, AFT, and DEA agencies who keep guns and drugs off of our streets.
These agencies are crucial partners to our state and local departments.
The proposed cuts continue to a pattern of behavior of defunding the police by this president.
In the past, the first Trump administration tried cutting cops and Burns JAG programs, programs that help with community.
In FY 2018, the administration budget sought an 11% to cut Burns JAG.
The next year, it proposed completely eliminating the cops office and cut the COPS program by over 50%.
Then in 2020, it again tried to erase the COPS office.
I strongly oppose efforts to dismantle these key programs that keep police officers and the public safe.
Let me just begin by asking Mr. Hughes.
Many of the guns that are used to shoot officers as well as community members were illegally possessed.
We must do everything that we can to get illegal guns off of our streets.
Unfortunately, the AFT is hamstrung in its ability to trace guns used in these crimes.
I recently introduced a Crime Gun Modernization Act to bring AFT into the 21st century by allowing AFT to electronically trace fire guns used in crimes.
Can you please explain how modernizing crime guns tracing would give law enforcement a key tool to keep officers and citizens safe?
unidentified
Thank you, Congresswoman.
I appreciate that and appreciate your support for enhancing federal law enforcement recruitment and retention.
And that includes your leadership with the Law Enforcement Fair Retirement Act, which is a priority of FLIOA.
The Gun Crime Tracing Modernization Act.
Look, it's getting more sophisticated with guns, and we need to be looking at ways to track guns and see where these crimes are originating, where the guns are originating, and so forth.
And I know that we support a searchable nationwide way to be able to do this to help identify trends, connect the dots, so to speak, on what's going on to make sure, especially with the ghost guns and things like that that are coming up, we have to be really careful here and ensure that we're protecting society from these dangerous guns.
It's great to be back in the committee to the witnesses.
Thank you for the work that you do, the organizations that you represent, and the support that you provide law enforcement all over this country.
And I must say, I'm a little bit surprised that the Democrats in this room and around this Congress are trying to paint the mirage that they actually support law enforcement.
They have law enforcement's back.
I don't think they're going to be successful.
The level of dishonesty that we're hearing even today, just a short recollection, defunding the police, that's a Democrat priority.
Cashless bail, that's a Democrat policy.
Weak laws and light sentences, that's a Democrat problem.
Open borders, the Democrats defended that ferociously, and they continue to defend that policy in this very committee.
No vetting admission into this country, that's a Democrat issue.
Sanctuary policies.
We saw that in very robust form all over the country in Democrat cities and Democrat states.
And we continue to see that today.
Look at California.
Look at Illinois.
Look at Democrat cities, even in my home state of North Carolina.
Sanctuary policies persist in Democrat jurisdictions.
Even members of this committee have called ICE and DHS and other law enforcement officers Nazis, racists, terrorists, Gestapo.
I find that and I find the accusations shameful.
Shameful.
There is not one bit of protest to the harm that illegal immigration and the crime from illegal immigration is causing law enforcement.
I worked in law enforcement for 10 years.
I worked as a federal prosecutor.
I saw the difference between the first Trump administration and the Biden administration.
We just had a question about gun crime.
It was much harder to charge someone for illegally possessing a firearm when Biden was president.
I saw it firsthand.
And I want to talk to you, starting with Mr. Hughes.
Talk about the sophistication of the criminal element and what type of difficulties that poses law enforcement in your experience.
unidentified
Yeah, no, criminals are getting.
Thank you, Congressman.
As we know, the criminals are getting so sophisticated in the way that they operate.
We see this here and abroad.
And we have to keep up, and we need to keep pace with that.
We need to be looking at every tool available to be able to counter, fight, combat all the crimes that are going on in society today.
See, just when I started as a prosecutor, local law enforcement who were task forced would kick in a door and they would find a Glock and maybe a baggie of drugs.
Now it's an AK-47 and a kilogram and a half of fentanyl.
unidentified
And 10 computers that are trying to track, trace, and follow law enforcement.
There was a clip that was played earlier that showed some very forceful actions by law enforcement.
Given the rhetoric that we've seen from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in sanctuary cities calling these members Gestapo Nazis, inciting fear amongst various communities, how has that damaged law enforcement's ability to act without the use of force?
unidentified
Well, look, I looked at the videos, and I think there was a lot of discussions here about the need to have oversight and discussions, and we really did dive into a few things that are worth looking into.
But I will tell you what we didn't dive into.
We came here to talk about law enforcement officers that are shot in line of duty, law enforcement officers that ambushed, and not one time did we even mention one person about how they were sitting eating lunch or eating dinner and were shot.
Yep.
So we missed the whole point.
It's disappointing to see.
I'm finally excited that we're going to talk about a real issue here, something near and dear to my members.
2,553 officers have been shot, yet we're not talking about it.
We're talking about tactics and politics and everything else.
At the end of the day, it's still my members that are out there facing it every day.
To answer your question, crime is changing.
It's evolving in a way that we can't keep up with it.
We're always going to be at a disadvantage because they make decisions pretty quick.
It takes Congress and it takes our state houses and our city councils to make decisions.
It takes a while.
So we're always playing a catch-up ball.
It is not a very comfortable time to be in law enforcement because we're never going to get ahead of it.
And rhetoric calling for violence should also be condemned.
But I'm old-fashioned.
I believe in the saying that a fish rots from the head.
And what our leaders say and do matters.
And when it comes to supporting law enforcement, Donald Trump and the Trump administration are rotten.
Donald Trump and the Trump administration's dangerous rhetoric and budget cuts, their defunding of the police, directly threaten the safety of Americans, including our law enforcement.
President Trump claims to support law enforcement, except when they're trying to enforce the many laws that he has broken.
President Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6 rioters who stormed the Capitol and brutally beat, tased, pepper sprayed law enforcement officers, including one of our courageous witnesses here today, Officer Hodges.
Brave officers with the Fairfax County Police Department from my district were also deployed to defend this Capitol during that insurrection.
That department is listed on the plaque that Speaker Johnson and Republicans refuse to hang.
This horrific attack on our democracy, an effort to thwart the will of the American people, resulted in assaults on at least 140 police officers, and five police officers lost their lives at the hands of the January 6th cop killers.
And I want to say their names.
Officer Brian Sicknick, Howie Liebingood, Jeffrey Smith, Kyle DeFreetag, and Gunther Hashida.
All patriots, all police officers.
Instead of allowing for the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump called for violence that led to the deaths of police officers.
Instead of condemning the insurrection and holding to account those responsible, President Trump has pardoned those that committed heinous crimes against our courageous officers like Officer Hodges.
And today, those cop killers are free.
They're in our communities.
They're committing more crimes.
Officer Hodges, on January 6th, 2021, President Trump delivered a speech on the ellipse to a group of his supporters.
In his speech, President Trump said, We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Do you believe that President Trump's remarks at the ellipse on January 6th encouraged his supporters to use violence against anyone trying to stop them, including police officers like yourself?
unidentified
Yes, in short.
It was revealed during the January 6th subcommittee investigation that Trump was notified that people were not getting into the ellipse because they were heavily armed.
They couldn't get through the magnetometers.
And you know what he said?
He said, take the magnetometers down, let them in.
They're not here to hurt me.
So he knew they were heavily armed.
He knew they were here to hurt someone.
And what did he do with that knowledge?
He told them to fight, fight, fight, and he sent them here to the Capitol.
And do you believe that pardoning those January 6 insurrectionists who killed police officers makes law enforcement across this country more or less safe today?
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for five minutes of questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, to the ranking member, and of course, to all of our witnesses for taking the time to come to this important hearing that's particularly meaningful to me because I was a cop for 10 years in the Denver metro area, the only Latino in the Colorado delegation right now.
And the reason I'm in Congress is because in 2020, the ruling Democrats in Colorado passed a bill that took the first steps toward defunding law enforcement and toward making cops guilty until they proved themselves innocent by enshrining into law the concept that anything not captured on a body cam could be interpreted by the courts as misconduct which was allowed to be presumed against the cops until the officers proved themselves innocent.
I ran our riot squad.
I was in charge of our riot squad in 2020 when Denver, Colorado suffered the most violent riots in the country as evaluated by the major cities Chiefs of Police Association and not a peep from the ruling Democrats in my state of Colorado.
I've buried two colleagues in my agency, Gordon Beasley, who was assassinated by an individual who was radicalized against law enforcement by anti-police rhetoric from elected leaders, shot in the back of the head, murdered.
It's on video.
The killing part is redacted on most of the publicly available stuff.
I buried Gordon Beasley, a school resource officer whose motto was find the good in everything.
I buried Dylan Vakoff, one of my friends who was in my riot squad at my agency, gunned down responding to a family disturbance call, Air Force veteran.
I watched my cops suffer these.
I buried countless others when I was on the honor guard.
And in terms of refusing to condemn physical or political violence, I will remind everyone of two votes that happened earlier this year where every single member of the United States House of Representatives voted to condemn the murder of a Democrat leader in Minnesota, but 118 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not vote to condemn the murder of Charlie Kirk.
When cops are handcuffed, when political rhetoric incites violence, it's the cops who suffer.
And not only is it the cops who suffer, it's the low-income and the minority communities that suffer.
In Colorado, $27 billion of lost economic productivity is a result of crime.
That doesn't impact the wealthy people.
That impacts low-income and minority communities.
My district is 40% Hispanic.
You know who suffers when we don't have law enforcement to keep our communities safe?
It's my low-income and my minority communities.
I have a bunch of skilled tradesmen in my district, plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, welders.
Colorado has led the nation more years than not the last five years in auto theft.
You know what happens when one of my Hispanic trade workers gets their vehicle stolen?
Not only are they out of vehicle, they've lost their job because they can't show up to the job site tomorrow to do the work.
The general contractor is not going to wait for them.
I've seen this happen because I've taken those reports.
We just had the sixth largest fentanyl in U.S. history in Colorado.
12 kilograms of fentanyl, 1.7 million illicit pills, enough to kill 6.8 million people, every man, woman, and child in Colorado.
And it is because of the defund the police and sanctuary city style politics that I personally experienced as a law enforcement officer in Colorado.
It's why I'm in Congress today.
And lest we forget, every 15 days under the previous administration, more Americans died as a result of drug overdoses like fentanyl than were killed in the entire September 11th terrorist attacks.
And that's personal to me too, because I am a combat veteran of the global war on terror.
I deployed to protect this country.
And to turn around and to see these cartels and these criminals and these peddlers of poison being able to run willy-nilly free in our communities because of defund the police rhetoric and because of sanctuary, city, and state policies is absolutely onerous to me.
And it's onerous to my communities.
It's onerous to the people that I have sworn oaths to uphold, to protect and defend as I uphold the Constitution.
We know the impacts on law enforcement officers that all of this has.
Cops experienced their first heart attack at the age of 46.
The average American experiences their first heart attack at the age of 65.
Cops experience the physical, mental, moral, and emotional injuries of this job.
And all of those things are made worse as a result of anti-law enforcement rhetoric.
I got 44 seconds left.
Mr. Yeos with the FOP, I was a dues-paying member of the fraternal order of police for 10 years, the rank-and-file, the union that represents rank-and-file law enforcement officers.
Can you speak to the physical, mental, and moral injuries that cops suffer when law enforcement is villainized in the media and by elected leaders?
26 seconds.
You know, I had somebody make a comment too.
I wish I thought of this, but I had somebody make a comment to me once before.
He said, It's difficult to defend humanity without losing a little of your own.
If you're not grounded, if you don't have the resources necessary to keep you grounded, then it's going to impact.
And we see it.
We see it happening all across this country where law enforcement officers have to deal with things that most people would like to think don't exist and somehow think that they can sniff their badge and it doesn't affect them.
We're human beings.
We're just average people asked to do occasionally some extraordinary things and it has its toll on law enforcement.
There's no question.
So when you compound all of this together, it makes our job more and more difficult.
And so you could see we lose more officers.
We talk about how many officers we lost.
That's why we're here.
We lose more officers every year by their own hands than we do to police action.
And that's the reality of it.
That's where we live.
And we need to recognize that we're damaging people.
When we damage someone in a protection of communities, we have a moral and fight you share responsibility to fix them.
I appreciate it to the extent that I think that a president who defunds the police ought to be sanctioned.
I don't draw the line such that we exclude some people and include others.
Let's not defund the police.
I don't want to do that.
But I do think that you ought to have the courage to say to the president, you, sir, are defunding the police when you take away hundreds of millions in grants in programs.
You've got to have the courage to speak truth not only about the people out in the street, but also the president of the United States of America, who has a greater voice than all of them combined.
The ink was placed on the page on January 20th, before the president had his hands down from being sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, before he had his hands down, he had his pen, and he signed a pardon.
January 20th, barely in office.
When are you going to condemn that?
That has an impact on society.
This is a reckless, ruthless, lawless president.
You don't have the courage to say that.
You glorify him.
This is the president who stood in the chambers of the United States House of Representatives.
Actually, it's the Capitol building and called Democrats lunatics.
No reprimand, no sanctions against the president.
Lunatics.
This is the president who just yesterday, this is the NBC news story.
Trump calls Ilham Omar garbage.
Says Somalis should go back to where they came from.
Yes, you are right, Mr. Thompson.
You said it starts at the top.
This is the top.
This is where it starts.
The President of the United States of America with his vituperative incendiary commentary is as much a part of the problem as anybody else.
But you don't have the courage to say that.
I say to you, cop killers ought to go to jail.
I have no reason to want to see cop killers walk the street, people who shoot National Guard persons walk the street.
They ought to be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.
But that doesn't mean that I'm going to excuse the President of the United States of America for what he's doing.
He is a culprit in this whole scenario that ought to be called to answer for his transgressions.
And now, Mr. Hodges, I was in my office when I heard your testimony.
I have two hearings that are going on at the same time.
Mr. Thompson has reminded me that I can't be in two places at once.
And I appreciate him telling me because he's eminently correct.
And I want the world to know that I try my best.
unidentified
But I was in my office and I heard your commentary.
I now recognize the newest member of our committee as well on the Republican side, gentleman from California, Mr. Fong, for five minutes of questions.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and your service.
It's sad and tragic that we have to have a hearing where we have to focus on the data that clearly shows that anti-law enforcement rhetoric right now is fueling violence against our officers.
And then, of course, the horrific tragedy of the shooting of the National Guard men Sarah Bextrom and Andrew Wolf clearly has intensified, and rightfully so, put a needed focus on this.
If I could ask Mr. Hughes, California Governor Gavin Newsom erroneously has attempted to overstep his jurisdiction by signing a bill into law that would ban state and federal law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings to protect their identities.
Unfortunately, as well, and I was in the state legislature when this passed and I opposed it, but California law prohibits delegation of immigration authority under Section 287G of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
And now other states, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, have introduced similar legislation in their state legislators, in their state legislatures.
What risk do these restrictions pose for federal, state, and local law, local task force personnel in doing operations?
Thank you, Congressman.
And again, I can't speak to the state and local law, but what I could speak is to the issue of the face coverings and what we have found given the current conditions.
And that's with the advent of artificial intelligence and social media, we have found that officers are being identified, personal information is being identified, and them and their families are being threatened.
And so that until such time that we could get that under control, I think we're in a particular position that this seems to be the way to go until we could change the laws and get some sort of normalcy where we could get that under control.
If I can ask Mr. Thompson or Mr. Yeos, both can speak to this.
I've talked to my local law enforcement agencies.
Recruitment, you mentioned this recruitment and retention are real challenges with these actions by Gavin Newsome, the actions of other states and the rhetoric now that we see.
How has that affected the morale of law enforcement and the ability to attract the best and brightest to join the ranks of law enforcement?
So I'll go first.
I'll go back to what I mentioned before.
We don't have a recruiting and retention problem.
We have retention and recruiting problems.
We fix the retention problem.
We'll fix the recruiting problem.
Unfortunately, law enforcement officers, for the most part, now, we've gone through so much turmoil that they're with a good conscience of not asking people to come into this profession.
So when we see actions like that, look, the most efficient way and most effective, and I would argue the most safest way in order to be able to enforce laws is to work collectively to be able to do it.
When we put up rhetoric and we put these barriers up, what we're doing is we're saying that we don't have a respect for the laws that were created.
And the people who, after enforceable, are the ones that are caught in the middle of this political thing.
This is not beneficial to anyone.
So that's what's hurting our profession.
That's why we can't pull people in.
You want to jump in, Mr. Thompson?
I would echo every word Mr. Yeose just said.
And I would go one step further is that it is important for all of us to recognize that we up here, we do speak truth to power every day.
Every single day.
I've never been called bashful in my life.
And I've never stood down from saying what I believe.
California and other states that are passing these laws, they are doing it at the risk of the public safety of their communities.
And the numbers of aggravated assaults are still sky high.
They are still climbing.
Murders are coming down, but ag assaults are the leading indicator of future criminal behavior.
Change those laws, come back to reality, recognize law enforcement is not your enemy.
It is not.
They save the lives every single day at the local level.
Well, I couldn't agree more.
We need to heed that sobering warning that you're providing.
But with the time I have remaining, if I can ask you, Mr. Hughes, what are the challenges that you face on holding non-governmental organizations accountable when they actively distribute protective gear such as face shields and goggles before large anti-law enforcement protests?
What challenges do you face with that?
Look, I'm not active in law enforcement anymore, but there certainly are challenges on all sides here and making sure that we're holding people accountable.
We have the intel that we're working with our state, local, federal partners and making sure we're coordinating information and finding out what's going on and holding people accountable for their actions.
Well, I appreciate the work that your members do, especially to protect my community and communities across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and a joint statement from the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police condemning the pardon of January 6 rioters who assaulted Mr. Hodges and a lot of other people.
And I really wanted one of our witnesses to say that.
But because they didn't, I want to enter it into the record.
You've been here for quite a while without taking a break.
And if those, if we have additional questions, which I know we will, we would ask the witnesses to respond to these in writing pursuant to Committee Rule 70 and the hearing record will be open for 10 days.
And I just also want to thank, recognize the two Capitol Police officers who've been in the back.
Thank them for their service, keeping us safe here every day.
Thank you for being here.
And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.
unidentified
The Senate returns later today at 3 p.m. Eastern.
Lawmakers will continue work on President Trump's judicial nominations and will vote at 5:30 p.m. to advance Robert Chamberlain to be a U.S. District Court judge for Northern Mississippi.
And on Thursday, senators are expected to vote on whether to extend health care subsidies set to expire at the end of the year.
The House is back Tuesday at noon Eastern to consider several bills, including authorizing the National Mall as the location for the World War II Women's Memorial, as well as reauthorizing federal funding for rural schools.
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN, the Senate on C-SPAN 2, and all of our congressional coverage on our free video app, C-SPAN Now, and our website at c-span.org.
Today, it's a discussion about the contested 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court's decision to end a Florida vote recount that resulted in the victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore, hosted by Rice University.
Watch it live starting at 11:15 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
The flight replacement program got started by a good friend of mine who, a Navy vet, saw a flag at the office that needed to be replaced and said, wouldn't this be great if this can be something that we did for anyone?