hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Creates new crime for entering National Guard protective zones.
Rep. Biggs (R-SC) and cosponsors.
Introduced in the House, referred to committee.
This bill establishes a new federal crime for knowingly entering a designated 'protective zone' around National Guard members during specific deployments, intending to interfere with their duties. The primary sponsor is Representative Mrs. Biggs, a Republican from South Carolina. The bill has just been introduced in the House of Representatives and assigned to a committee for review, meaning it has a long way to go before potentially becoming law.
Introduced Mar 12, 2026
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 12, 2026, and sent to the House Judiciary Committee. It must pass through this committee, then be voted on by the full House. If it passes there, it moves to the Senate for a similar process, and finally to the President for signature.
If this bill becomes law, you could face legal consequences, including fines or up to one year in prison, if you knowingly enter a designated 15-foot 'protective zone' around a National Guard member during certain deployments with the intent to interfere. These zones would be marked by warnings or barriers. If you make physical contact, throw an object, or spit on a Guard member within such a zone, the penalty could increase to up to five years in prison. However, the bill specifies it won't prohibit First Amendment activities conducted outside these marked zones.
Supporters Say
Supporters likely argue this bill protects National Guard members and ensures public order during deployments.
Critics Say
Critics might express concerns about potential impacts on freedom of speech and assembly near Guard operations.
While the bill text does not include explicit arguments, proponents would likely emphasize the need to safeguard National Guard personnel who are serving the public, ensuring they can perform their duties without intimidation or physical harm. They might point to instances where Guard members have been subject to close-range confrontations. Critics, conversely, might raise questions about how such protective zones could restrict public access or protest activities, even with the First Amendment clause, especially if the zones are widely or vaguely applied during deployments.