The DETERRENCE Act increases penalties for violent crimes like kidnapping, murder-for-hire, stalking, and attacks on federal officials and their families, when directed by or coordinated with a foreign government.
Ann Wagner
Representative
MO-2
The DETERRENCE Act increases criminal penalties for specific offenses, such as kidnapping, murder-for-hire, stalking, and assaults against federal officials, when those crimes are committed at the direction of or in coordination with a foreign government or its agents. It enhances sentences for these crimes by adding additional years of imprisonment, with the exact increase depending on the underlying offense and the extent of foreign government involvement. This bill aims to deter foreign governments from directing or coordinating criminal activities within the United States by imposing stricter punishments.
This legislation, known as the DETERRENCE Act, aims to significantly increase penalties for several serious federal crimes if they are committed knowingly at the direction of, or in coordination with, a foreign government or its agents. It modifies existing laws under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, essentially adding extra prison time onto sentences for offenses like kidnapping, murder-for-hire, stalking, threatening or assaulting federal officials and their families, and attacks or plots against the President or presidential staff.
The core change here isn't creating new crimes, but adding a specific sentencing enhancement based on foreign involvement. Think of it as an add-on penalty. For instance:
On paper, the goal is clear: discourage foreign governments from using criminal acts to intimidate, harm, or influence within the U.S. – think transnational repression or targeting officials. It gives prosecutors another tool specifically for cases with a foreign state link. However, the real-world application hinges on proving that 'knowing direction' or 'coordination' with a foreign government or its agent (language used across Sec. 2-7).
The potential issue? How broadly will 'coordination' be interpreted? This could become a complex legal question. For example, someone communicating with people in another country might face scrutiny if those contacts are linked, even indirectly, to a foreign government and a crime occurs. This raises concerns about potential disproportionate impacts on individuals or communities with ties abroad, especially if the definition of 'coordination' isn't crystal clear in practice.
This act fits into a larger focus on countering foreign interference and protecting U.S. personnel and interests. By attaching heavier penalties, the idea is to create a stronger deterrent against state-sponsored criminal activity on U.S. soil. The challenge lies in implementation – ensuring these enhanced penalties are applied fairly and accurately, based on solid evidence of foreign government involvement, without chilling legitimate international connections or becoming a tool for overreach based on perceived foreign ties. The key will be how courts and prosecutors define and apply the 'direction' and 'coordination' elements outlined throughout the bill.