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. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13] · D–OH
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 14, 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.1751 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.1751 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.1751 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.1751 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.
This proposal would amend the federal stalking law to expressly mention use of an unauthorized location-tracking device. It defines these devices as tools that let someone remotely track another person's position and movement, and treats use as unauthorized when that person has not consented or has withdrawn consent. The proposal is titled the Stop Electronic Stalking Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Stop Electronic Stalking Act of 2025.
Stalking penalty Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
by inserting after uses the mail, the following: uses an unauthorized geotracking device;
(1) The term geotracking device means an electronic or mechanical device that permits a person to remotely determine or track the position and movement of another person. (2) The term unauthorized means, with respect to a geotracking device, that the person on whom the geotracking device is being used has not consented to such use or otherwise revoked consent to such use.
Section 2 would insert “uses an unauthorized geotracking device” immediately after “uses the mail,” in the existing stalking statute. It would also label the existing text as subsection (a), “In general,” and add definitions in subsection (b).
Section 2261A of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking Whoever and inserting (a) In general.—Whoever; (2) by inserting after uses the mail, the following: uses an unauthorized geotracking device; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (b) Definitions In this section:
The proposed definition of a location-tracking device includes both electronic and mechanical devices that allow someone to remotely determine or track another person's position and movement.
The term geotracking device means an electronic or mechanical device that permits a person to remotely determine or track the position and movement of another person.
Under the proposal, device use would be unauthorized if the person being tracked has not consented to that use or has revoked consent. Prior consent would therefore not remain sufficient after it is withdrawn.
The term unauthorized means, with respect to a geotracking device, that the person on whom the geotracking device is being used has not consented to such use or otherwise revoked consent to such use.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 27, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T16:11:59Z. 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
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 is limited to that version and does not establish what appears 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 is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of accompanying earmark materials or other versions.
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. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI