Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Privacy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs bill to keep identifying details of officers in immigration enforcement confidential

House Government Operations Committee · March 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Government Operations Committee voted to recommend House Bill 2506, which would make personal identifying information of officers involved in immigration enforcement confidential statewide and protect details of ongoing operations; supporters cited officer safety while some members raised accountability concerns.

Chairman Howe told the committee the bill’s aim is to protect the personal safety of officers involved in immigration enforcement and to create uniform statewide confidentiality rather than a patchwork of local rules. "It just simply says that the names, home addresses, contact information and other personal identifying details of federal, state and local officers involved in illegal immigration enforcement shall remain confidential," he said.

Supporters said officers face harassment and threats in other states and that the measure narrows protected records to identifying details and operational specifics. Representative Powell praised the bill as narrowly tailored to prevent harassment at officers’ homes while preserving accountability through existing criminal and civil processes. Several members asked whether Tennessee has seen incidents like those cited in other states; the sponsor acknowledged protests have occurred locally but said he was not aware of injuries.

Opponents urged caution about indefinite secrecy. Representative Clemens warned that if operations have no defined end, secrecy could hinder later accountability. Howe and other supporters responded that the bill does not remove the courts’ ability to adjudicate wrongdoing, and that protection of personal information is warranted where release would place officers or family members at risk.

The committee called the previous question and voted on a positive recommendation; the clerk recorded 10 ayes and 4 nays, and the measure was reported to the calendar and rules committee.