PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Sep 2, 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.1698 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.1698 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.1698 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.1698 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 · 2025-02-27 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 Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act of 2025 would add a Freedom of Information Act exemption covering federal firearm-tracing data and specified firearm-licensee records. It would require fines for certain unlawful disclosures by nonfederal government entities and temporarily cut off repeat violators’ access. It would also let adversely affected firearm licensees sue specified agencies and entities for damages and legal costs. These are proposed changes; the supplied evidence does not establish enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act of 2025.
2. Amendment to FOIA Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
(10) contents of the Firearm Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18 or reported pursuant to paragraph (3) or (7) of such section.
The Attorney General shall fine a State, local, tribal, or foreign entity
The Attorney General may not disclose protected information to an entity fined under subsection (a)(2), for 1 year after the date of the imposition of the fine.
Any entity with a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, adversely affected or aggrieved by a disclosure of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute or any other applicable Federal law by a Federal agency or a local, tribal, or foreign entity may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the agency or entity for remedies available under this section.
(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and court costs.
Section 2 would add a new paragraph to the Freedom of Information Act covering the contents of the federal firearm-tracing database and information licensees must keep or report under the specified parts of 18 U.S.C. 923(g). The existing statutory provisions are not reproduced, so the supplied text does not fully describe those records or how the new exemption would interact with existing law.
2. Amendment to FOIA Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (8), by striking or at the end; (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting ; or; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph: (10) contents of the Firearm Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18 or reported pursuant to paragraph (3) or (7) of such section.
The bill defines protected information as all or part of the federal firearm-tracing database and the specified licensee records and reports. Its principal disclosure restriction would be an existing provision in the 2012 Justice Department appropriations law, or a successor law; the bill does not reproduce that restriction.
The term covered disclosure statute means the 6th proviso under the heading Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2012 (title II of division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012; 18 U.S.C. 923 note), or successor law.
The term protected information means the following: (A) The contents, or a portion thereof, of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. (B) The information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) or reported pursuant to paragraph (3) or (7) of such section.
The Attorney General would have to fine a state, local, tribal, or foreign entity upon determining that it unlawfully disclosed protected information after enactment. The disclosure must violate the referenced disclosure statute or another applicable federal law.
The Attorney General shall fine a State, local, tribal, or foreign entity the following amount if the Attorney General determines that the entity made a disclosure of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute or any other applicable Federal law after the date of the enactment of this Act:
The fine would be $10,000 for an entity’s first violation or a violation more than three years after its most recent violation. Other violations would carry a $25,000 fine. For violations of the referenced disclosure statute, the bill requires a separate fine for each disclosure of each individual piece of protected information.
(1) $10,000, for the first violation by the entity or a violation by the entity occurring more than 3 years after the most recent violation by the entity. (2) $25,000, for any other violation by the entity.
In assessing fines under this section, the Attorney General shall impose a fine for each disclosure of each individual piece of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute.
For one year after a $25,000 fine under the repeat-violation provision is imposed, the Attorney General could not disclose protected information to the fined entity. The Attorney General could also bring a civil court action to enforce or collect a fine.
The Attorney General may not disclose protected information to an entity fined under subsection (a)(2), for 1 year after the date of the imposition of the fine.
The Attorney General may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce or collect payment of a fine imposed under subsection (a).
An entity licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 could sue if adversely affected or aggrieved by an unlawful disclosure of protected information. The proposed right to sue names federal agencies and local, tribal, or foreign entities as defendants; it does not expressly list states.
Any entity with a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, adversely affected or aggrieved by a disclosure of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute or any other applicable Federal law by a Federal agency or a local, tribal, or foreign entity may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the agency or entity for remedies available under this section.
The bill would bar sovereign immunity—the government's protection against being sued—as a defense in these lawsuits.
Sovereign immunity shall not be a defense in an action under this section.
A successful licensee would be entitled to the greater of three times its damages, including lost business income or reputational harm, or $25,000 for each disclosure of each individual piece of information that violates the referenced disclosure statute. It would also receive reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, plus any punitive damages the court allows—additional damages intended as punishment.
An entity that prevails on a violation alleged in a claim under this section shall be entitled to— (1) the greater of— (A) triple the amount of damages suffered by the entity, including damages resulting from loss of business income or harm to the reputation of the entity; or (B) $25,000, for each disclosure of each individual piece of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute; (2) such punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and court costs.
The bill would preserve other legal remedies. It also says that if a court invalidates a provision, amendment, or its application to a particular person or circumstance, the remaining provisions and applications would be unaffected.
This Act shall not be interpreted to preclude any other remedy available under law.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, no other such provision, amendment, or application shall be affected thereby.
A local entity would mean a city, county, municipal corporation, or other government unit that is a political subdivision of a state but not an arm of the state. The bill borrows its definition of federal agency from 28 U.S.C. 2671, whose text is not supplied.
The term Federal agency has the meaning given the term in section 2671 of title 28, United States Code.
The term local entity means a city, county, municipal corporation, or other unit of government that is a political subdivision, and not an arm, of a State.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 2, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 27, 2025, and referral that day to the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It supplies no later action; that does not establish whether the bill subsequently advanced or became law.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-02T08:06:43Z.
2025-02-27: Introduced in House
2025-02-27: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. 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 applies only to that version, not 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 is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text creates a specialized legal remedy for a limited class. This classification does not imply improper purpose.
Entities licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 would receive a special right to sue over unlawful disclosures that adversely affect or aggrieve them. The remedy includes enhanced damages, legal costs, and a bar on sovereign-immunity defenses. This preferential remedy supports the bill’s main policy of protecting firearm-related information.
Any entity with a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, adversely affected or aggrieved by a disclosure of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute or any other applicable Federal law by a Federal agency or a local, tribal, or foreign entity may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the agency or entity for remedies available under this section.
Sovereign immunity shall not be a defense in an action under this section.
An entity that prevails on a violation alleged in a claim under this section shall be entitled to— (1) the greater of— (A) triple the amount of damages suffered by the entity, including damages resulting from loss of business income or harm to the reputation of the entity; or (B) $25,000, for each disclosure of each individual piece of protected information in violation of the covered disclosure statute; (2) such punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and court costs.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI