Geotracking Stalking Added to Federal Law

Summary#

The Stop Electronic Stalking Act of 2025 would amend the federal stalking provision in section 2261A of title 18, United States Code. It would add use of an unauthorized geotracking device to the conduct covered by that provision and define “geotracking device” and “unauthorized”; its stated goal is to criminalize stalking using such a device. The bill is not law: it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

  • A geotracking device would mean an electronic or mechanical device that lets someone remotely determine or track another person’s position and movement.
  • Use would be “unauthorized” if the person being tracked did not consent or revoked consent.
  • The bill adds this conduct to an existing stalking provision; it does not say that every use of a tracking device without consent is a crime. The other requirements of the existing provision would still matter.
  • The bill does not set out a new penalty range. The full current text of section 2261A was not supplied, so the existing penalty and other requirements could not be verified.

What it means for you#

  • People being tracked: The bill would treat use of a geotracking device without your consent, or after you revoke consent, as conduct covered by the federal stalking provision—if the other requirements of that provision are met.
  • People using tracking devices: You could face the existing federal stalking law if your conduct meets its requirements and involves an unauthorized geotracking device. The bill does not create an application, review, or consent-record process.
  • General public: The bill would not ban geotracking devices or change when tracking is authorized under other laws. How it interacts with other laws is unclear.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill contains no appropriation, fee, or staffing requirement.
  • No publicly available information is provided about possible enforcement costs.
  • The bill does not state a new penalty range; the existing penalty could not be checked against the full current law.

What is unclear#

  • The full current text of section 2261A was not supplied, so its other elements and current penalties could not be verified.
  • The bill does not explain how consent or revoked consent would be shown or disputed.
  • It does not specify exceptions or explain how the new language would interact with other laws.
  • It gives no start date, enforcement details, or estimate of public costs.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address stalking that uses electronic or mechanical devices to locate and track a person remotely.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that naming this method in the federal stalking provision would make clear that it can be covered when the existing law’s other requirements are met.
  • The definition includes cases where a person first agreed to tracking but later revoked consent.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill does not define how consent or revocation must be communicated or proved.
  • It is unclear how the new language would apply alongside the existing requirements of section 2261A, which were not included in the supplied material.
  • The bill provides no new penalty range, cost estimate, or details about enforcement, making its practical effects harder to assess.