Bill Proposes Cash Rewards to Counter Alleged Bounties on Police

WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 23, 2026 – By Daniel Howard

Federal lawmakers are considering a new tool in the effort to protect law enforcement, proposing legislation that would authorize the U.S. Attorney General to offer cash rewards for information on bounties placed on the lives of police officers. The 'No Bounties on Badges Act' (S. 3453 / H.R. 7114) has gained a significant endorsement from the National Police Association (NPA), which argues the measure is a critical response to escalating and ruthless threats against officers across the country.

The proposed legislation comes in response to what its sponsors describe as credible intelligence from the Department of Homeland Security. This intelligence allegedly indicates that criminal cartels and domestic extremist groups are offering bounties to kill, harm, or intimidate law enforcement officers. The bill aims to create a strong federal deterrent by financially incentivizing individuals to come forward with information that could lead to the arrest of those offering such bounties or the prevention of an attack.

"That bounties are being placed on the lives of police officers demonstrates that yet another perverse line has been crossed," said Paula Fitzsimmons, Legislative Director for the National Police Association, in a statement. "The government should be provided with every possible tool to protect these men and women from becoming targets. The No Bounties on Badges Act will go a long way in saving officers' lives and bringing would-be assassins to full justice."

A New Federal Reward Program

The 'No Bounties on Badges Act' was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) and in the House by Rep. Tim Moore (NC-14). Both versions have been referred to their respective Judiciary Committees for review. If passed, the law would amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which already contains provisions for rewards related to terrorism and espionage, to explicitly include the "offering of bounties" against law enforcement.

Under the bill's provisions, the Attorney General would be empowered to offer a reward to any individual who provides information that leads to:

• The arrest or conviction of a person for offering a bounty on an officer.
• The arrest or conviction of a person for conspiring or attempting to carry out such an act.
• The successful prevention or frustration of an attack on an officer stemming from a bounty.

This approach builds on existing federal reward frameworks. The U.S. government already operates several programs, such as the State Department's 'Rewards for Justice' and 'Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program,' which offer payments for information on terrorists and international criminals. The 'No Bounties on Badges Act' adapts this concept, tailoring it specifically to address a perceived domestic threat against the police.

Supporters, including a growing list of law enforcement organizations like the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) and the NYPD Sergeants’ Benevolent Association, frame the bill as a necessary and proactive measure. They argue it provides a clear mechanism to gather intelligence and disrupt plots before they can be carried out, sending an unequivocal message that targeting officers will be met with a robust federal response.

Questions of Evidence and Implementation

While the bill's proponents cite urgent threats, the specific intelligence from the Department of Homeland Security detailing these bounty programs has not been widely released to the public. This has led some policy analysts and civil liberties advocates to call for more transparency regarding the evidence underpinning the legislation. Without access to detailed reports, it remains difficult for outside observers to gauge the precise scale and nature of the threat the bill is designed to counter.

Furthermore, the introduction of a new financial reward system raises practical and ethical questions. Critics of similar programs have long pointed to the risk of attracting false or misleading information from individuals seeking a payout. Vetting such tips requires significant law enforcement resources and carries the risk of initiating investigations based on faulty intelligence.

Concerns have also been raised about the potential impact on community-police relations. Some fear that creating a system of paid informants could foster an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, particularly in communities where relationships with law enforcement are already strained. The idea of the government paying citizens for information on their neighbors, critics argue, could be perceived as an expansion of a surveillance state, regardless of the laudable goal of protecting officers.

The Political Path in Congress

The 'No Bounties on Badges Act' is currently in the early stages of the legislative process. Its sponsorship is, at present, entirely Republican, with co-sponsors in the Senate including Tedd Budd of North Carolina and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and House co-sponsors including Troy Nehls of Texas and John Rutherford of Florida. The central challenge for the bill's proponents will be to build a broader, bipartisan coalition to move it out of committee and onto the floor for a vote.

The legislation enters a complex political landscape where debates over policing, crime, and civil rights are highly polarized. Supporters are positioning the bill as a straightforward, common-sense measure for officer safety, a theme they hope will resonate across the political aisle. However, any bill that expands federal law enforcement power is likely to face intense scrutiny from civil liberties groups and criminal justice reform advocates who will demand strong oversight and clear evidence of its necessity.

As the House and Senate Judiciary Committees begin their work, the debate will likely center on balancing the stated goal of protecting officers against the potential for unintended consequences. The bill's ultimate fate will depend on whether its sponsors can convince a majority in Congress that the threat is not only real but that this specific legislative solution is the most effective and appropriate way to address it.