Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act of 2025
SB 38, the “Preserving Safe Communities by Ending Swatting Act of 2025,” would expand and strengthen the federal criminal and civil penalties for making false or misleading communications that trigger emergency responses. The bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 1038 to cover a broader set of hoaxes and false reports, including communications that falsely suggest certain serious federal crimes or other conduct that could prompt an emergency response. It also covers false reports made through the mail or interstate/foreign commerce when they are reasonably expected to cause an emergency response and involve conduct that is a crime under state or federal law or that endangers public health or safety.
Under the bill, a violator could face up to 5 years in prison, with enhanced penalties of up to 20 years if serious bodily injury results and up to life imprisonment if death results. The bill also creates or broadens civil liability, allowing parties who incur expenses from an emergency or investigative response to recover those costs from the person who made the false report. It defines “emergency response” to include deployment of personnel or equipment, evacuation orders or advice, and public warnings issued by public-safety agencies or certain private nonprofit fire or rescue organizations.
The bill would therefore broaden federal law’s reach over “swatting” and related false emergency reports, increasing the potential consequences for individuals who intentionally create dangerous false alarms. It would affect criminal defendants, victims of hoaxes, public-safety agencies, and others who bear the costs of emergency deployments. By expanding both criminal exposure and civil cost recovery, the bill would likely make federal enforcement against swatting and emergency hoaxes more robust.
Available context shows little recorded debate or formal vote history, so there is no documented committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill’s title and structure suggest a generally punitive, public-safety-oriented approach, and the sponsors appear to support stronger deterrence against swatting. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, there is no evidence of organized opposition in the available record.
Potential points of contention, based on the text, could include the breadth of the false-reporting standard, the range of underlying crimes and public-safety threats covered, and the expansion of civil liability for emergency-response costs. Critics might question whether the language is sufficiently precise or whether it could sweep in borderline speech, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to deter dangerous hoaxes that put law enforcement, first responders, and the public at risk.
The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1038 to broaden federal criminal penalties for false communications that cause or are expected to cause emergency responses, and it would add or expand civil liability for response costs. It would affect federal criminal law, emergency-response cost recovery, and parties involved in swatting, bomb threats, hoaxes, and other false public-safety reports.
The available record suggests a generally supportive, public-safety-focused sentiment, as the bill was introduced by multiple senators and referred to committee without recorded opposition in the provided materials. No committee transcript or vote data is available, so there is no documented controversy or bipartisan negotiation in the record supplied.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the conduct covered, the breadth of the listed underlying offenses and public-safety harms, and whether the civil-liability provisions could be applied too broadly. Supporters would likely argue the bill is needed to deter swatting and protect first responders and the public, while any critics would likely focus on overbreadth, prosecutorial discretion, and potential chilling effects on speech or reporting.