PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Van Epps, Matt [R-TN-7] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 1, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10470 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10470 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10470 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10470 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed bill would require the Attorney General to develop a tool to help law enforcement identify domestic violence victims, assess their risk of serious injury or death, and connect them with resources. Covered federal officers would receive training and periodic refresher training. The bill would also require a federal plan for connecting officers with local domestic violence response resources.
the Attorney General shall develop and make publicly available an evidence-based lethality assessment tool for use by law enforcement officers in identifying victims of domestic violence, assessing the risk of serious injury or death with respect to such victims, and connecting such victims to appropriate resources.
The Director shall provide to each covered Federal law enforcement officer— (i) a training with respect to the evidence-based lethality assessment tool developed under section 2 of the SHIELD for Victims Act of 2026; and (ii) a refresher training with respect to such tool
a plan to ensure Federal law enforcement officers are connected to local domestic violence response resources as necessary when properly conducting the Lethality Assessment Program.
Section 1 would name the bill the “SHIELD for Victims Act of 2026.”
This Act may be cited as the Screening Harm, Identifying Escalating Lethality Danger for Victims Act of 2026 or as the SHIELD for Victims Act of 2026.
The bill's findings describe the Lethality Assessment Program as a promising way to screen for the risk of a partner killing a victim. They also state that training should include identifying the primary aggressor—the main aggressor in an incident. These are congressional findings, rather than separate requirements to use that program or include that training content.
The Congress finds as follows:
(2) The Lethality Assessment Program is a lethality screen for intimate partner violence victims recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice as a promising practice in intimate partner homicide prevention.
(5) It is important to include a primary aggressor training in the LAP training curriculum.
Within one year after enactment, the Attorney General would have to develop and publicly release an evidence-based tool for identifying domestic violence victims, assessing their risk of serious injury or death, and connecting them with appropriate resources.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and make publicly available an evidence-based lethality assessment tool for use by law enforcement officers in identifying victims of domestic violence, assessing the risk of serious injury or death with respect to such victims, and connecting such victims to appropriate resources.
The Attorney General would have to consult relevant experts, consider applicable best practices, and establish a model questionnaire as part of the tool.
In developing the evidence-based lethality assessment tool under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall— (A) consult with relevant experts and consider applicable best practices; and (B) establish a model questionnaire to be implemented as part of such tool.
The bill would amend the Homeland Security Act to require the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers' Director to provide covered federal officers with training on the tool. Officers would have to complete refresher training at least once every three years after completing the initial training.
(b) Training responsibilities of Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (1) In general Section 884(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 464(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
The Director shall provide to each covered Federal law enforcement officer— (i) a training with respect to the evidence-based lethality assessment tool developed under section 2 of the SHIELD for Victims Act of 2026; and (ii) a refresher training with respect to such tool to be completed by such officer at least once every 3 years after the date on which such officer completes the training described in clause (i).
Training coverage would depend on an existing statutory definition of federal law enforcement officer and the officer's primary duties. The listed duties include investigations and federal law enforcement, as well as patrol, responding to complaints, arrests, traffic or crowd control, emergencies, and other traditional law enforcement responsibilities.
the term covered Federal law enforcement officer means a Federal law enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2 of the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008 (34 U.S.C. 50301)) if the duties of such officer— (i) are primarily related to collection of evidence, interdiction and seizure of contraband, surveillance, execution of search warrants, analysis of information, arrest of suspects, development of cases for prosecutions, or any other investigation and enforcement duties pertaining to Federal laws and regulations; or (ii) are primarily related to preventive patrol, responding to complaints and reports of illegal activities, arresting violators, traffic control, crowd control, handling of emergencies, or other traditional law enforcement responsibilities.
The Attorney General would have to make the training curriculum and related materials publicly available.
The Attorney General shall make publicly available the curriculum and materials related to the training developed under paragraph (13) of section 884(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 464(d)), as added by paragraph (1).
Within 180 days after enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have to report to Congress with a plan for connecting federal officers to local domestic violence response resources when necessary to conduct the Lethality Assessment Program properly.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a report setting forth a plan to ensure Federal law enforcement officers are connected to local domestic violence response resources as necessary when properly conducting the Lethality Assessment Program.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 1, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-01T21:03:22Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program coverage does not by itself constitute a targeted benefit. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 1, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI