Halo Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The Halo Act creates a new federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison for obstructing, threatening, or harassing Federal immigration enforcement officers during their lawful duties.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal criminal offense for individuals who, after receiving a verbal warning, knowingly approach or remain within 25 feet of a Federal immigration enforcement officer with the intent to impede, threaten, or harass them while they are performing their lawful duties. The offense carries a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides essential protections for federal immigration enforcement officers, enabling them to perform their critical duties without interference, threats, or harassment. They contend it enhances officer safety, maintains order during enforcement operations, and deters individuals who intentionally seek to impede lawful government functions, thereby strengthening border security and public safety.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that this bill is overly broad and could criminalize legitimate public observation, journalism, or peaceful protest of immigration enforcement activities, thereby chilling free speech and assembly rights. They may also argue it grants excessive discretionary power to enforcement officers and could lead to arbitrary enforcement or disproportionate penalties for minor infractions.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 1522 to Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code.
Establishment of Criminal Penalty for Obstructing Immigration Enforcement Activities
This provision makes it a federal crime for any person to knowingly violate a verbal warning from a Federal immigration enforcement officer by approaching or remaining within 25 feet of the officer, with the intent to impede, interfere with, threaten, or harass them while they are engaged in a lawful duty. The term 'harass' is defined as knowingly engaging in conduct that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and operational effectiveness of federal agents. They contend that establishing clear boundaries and penalties for interference will deter individuals from obstructing lawful enforcement actions, which are often high-stakes and require officers to maintain control and focus.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision is overly broad and could be used to suppress legitimate public oversight, journalism, or peaceful protest of immigration enforcement activities. They raise concerns that the subjective definitions of 'harass' and 'legitimate purpose' could lead to arbitrary enforcement and infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between ensuring the safety and operational efficiency of law enforcement officers and protecting civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the right to observe government actions. It seeks to deter harmful interference while potentially impacting the scope of public interaction with federal agents.