Michigan House Bill HB4600

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Crimes: terrorism; making terrorist threat or false report of terrorism; modify. Amends sec. 543m of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.543m).

Summary

HB 4600 would amend Michigan’s penal code section on terrorist threats and false reports of terrorism. The bill keeps the existing offense for knowingly making a false report of terrorism, and it clarifies/expands the threat offense by adding a reckless-disregard standard: a person could be guilty not only for knowingly communicating a terrorist threat, but also for threatening an act of terrorism while recklessly disregarding a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence. The bill also preserves the rule that a defendant cannot avoid prosecution by arguing they lacked the intent or ability to carry out the threatened act. A violation remains a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both, and the act would take effect 90 days after enactment.

Impact

HB 4600 would amend MCL 750.543m in the Michigan penal code, broadening the circumstances under which a person may be prosecuted for making a terrorist threat while leaving the false-report provision and penalties unchanged. Its practical effect would be to give prosecutors a clearer basis to charge communications that are not necessarily made with direct knowledge of their threatening effect, but are made with reckless disregard for the risk that they will be perceived as violent threats. The bill would primarily affect individuals accused of threatening terrorism, false reporting, and related speech-based conduct, while reinforcing existing criminal penalties for such conduct.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive of strengthening terrorism-related criminal enforcement. The measure is framed as a public-safety and law-enforcement clarification rather than a major policy shift, and there is no evidence in the supplied record of organized opposition or amendment debate. The lack of voting history or transcript discussion limits the ability to identify a broader political split.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the expansion of liability from knowingly making a terrorist threat to also covering reckless disregard of whether the communication would be viewed as threatening violence. Supporters would likely view this as closing a loophole and improving public safety, while critics could argue it broadens criminal exposure for speech and may raise concerns about overcriminalization or First Amendment boundaries. Another possible point of debate is that the bill continues to allow prosecution even when the defendant lacked the intent or capability to carry out the threat, which some may see as necessary deterrence and others as too expansive.