Senate Approves Hero Bill Amid Rising Pro-Police Momentum
The U.S. Senate passed bipartisan legislation introduced by Nevada Democrat Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Senate Republican Mitch McConnell to ensure the families of retired law enforcement officers killed in retaliation for their service are no longer denied federal benefits.
The Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act was passed by unanimous consent and now heads to the House of Representatives for a vote.
The bill is named after Chief Herbert D. Proffitt, a Korean War veteran and law enforcement officer of 55 years who retired in 2009 as police chief in Tompkinsville, Kentucky. On August 28, 2012, Chief Proffitt was gunned down in his driveway by a man he had arrested 10 years earlier. His murder was determined to be direct retaliation for his police service—yet his family was denied benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program because he had already retired.
“Even though his murder was a direct retaliation for his service in uniform, Chief Proffitt’s family was denied the benefits they deserved simply because he had already retired,” Cortez Masto said on the Senate floor. “To me, that is unacceptable. And I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree.”
While the Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act passed, it was originally part of a broader package Cortez Masto tried to push through—seven pro-law enforcement bills in total. Only two ultimately cleared the Senate: the Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act and the Improving Police CARE Act.
The five bills blocked included:
–The Protecting First Responders from Secondary Exposure Act, which would provide local governments with training and tools to protect officers from dangerous substances;
–The Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act of 2025, aimed at assisting police and first responders with mental health needs;
–The PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025, to modernize and reauthorize the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program;
–The Strong Communities Act of 2025, which would incentivize recruits to serve in the neighborhoods where they live;
–The Retired Law Enforcement Officers Continuing Service Act, supporting the hiring of retired officers to perform civilian law enforcement tasks.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., objected to the five measures, according to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who accused Booker of blocking the bills “in an effort to force federal dollars to sanctuary cities that blatantly violate federal immigration law.”
Cortez Masto, formerly Nevada’s top law enforcement officer, has long been active on policing issues. She’s a member of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus and has authored several bipartisan bills to combat law enforcement suicide and improve mental health resources—signed into law by presidents of both parties. She also authored the BADGES for Native Communities Act, aimed at helping the Bureau of Indian Affairs with recruitment and retention.
New York Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman praised the bill’s passage and urged swift House action.
“We have an obligation to care for those who pay the ultimate price while serving in the line of duty, even after they have retired,” Goldman said.
“At a time when partisan gridlock is grinding Congress to a halt, I’m encouraged that both parties came together to pass this commonsense legislation honoring our fallen heroes. I urge Republican leadership to bring this bill to the House Floor in September and ensure that any law enforcement officers killed or injured in the line of duty receive the benefits they deserve—regardless of retirement status,” he said.
The bill is just one of many that the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is expected to vote on and pass after lawmakers just returned from the August recess, which many were upset about and wanted lawmakers to stay in Washington, D.C., and help pass President Trump’s agenda.
Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Contains Financial Surprise For Seniors
Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Contains Financial Surprise For Seniors
The tax law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, includes a new temporary tax deduction aimed at taxpayers age 65 and older that could reduce their federal tax burden on filings for tax years 2025 through 2028.
Under the provision, eligible seniors may claim up to a $6,000 additional deduction on their federal income tax returns, on top of the regular standard deduction or any itemized deductions. Married couples in which both spouses are 65 or older may qualify for up to $12,000 in total senior deductions.
To qualify, taxpayers must be 65 or older by the end of the tax year and have a valid Social Security number. There are income limits for full eligibility: single filers generally must have a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) below about $75,000, and married joint filers must have a MAGI below about $150,000. The deduction phases out gradually for incomes above those thresholds and is unavailable once income exceeds the higher limits.
The deduction is available whether a senior itemizes deductions or takes the standard deduction, and its primary effect is to lower taxable income, which can reduce tax liability or increase a tax refund when filing. It does not directly eliminate federal tax on Social Security benefits, though in many cases the deduction may reduce tax owed on part of those benefits, Moneywise reported.
The senior tax break is one of several individual tax provisions in the 2025 law, which also extended prior tax cuts and added other deductions for things like wage income and interest expenses.
One of the most compelling reasons to claim this deduction is the rising cost of health care
By 2026, Medicare Part B premiums and other cost-sharing requirements continue to climb, often reducing a significant portion of the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase. For many seniors, these recurring medical expenses are a major drain on their retirement savings, the outlet reported.
By utilizing the $6,000 deduction to lower your federal tax liability, you can effectively increase your available funds for covering these premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs, without depleting your principal savings further.
It’s important to note that the benefit of this deduction largely depends on whether you owe federal income tax. Many lower-income seniors may have zero tax liability after applying the standard deduction. For them, an additional deduction offers no extra benefit since it is not a refundable credit.
The ideal candidates for this deduction are retirees who have enough taxable income—whether from IRA withdrawals, pensions, wages, or investments—such that a $6,000 reduction in taxable income leads to actual tax savings, the report added.|
One of the most flexible aspects of this new law is that it is available to both itemizers and non-itemizers. This means you don’t have to choose between your charitable giving or medical expense deductions and the new $6,000 deduction. However, it’s important to run the numbers to determine whether itemizing is more beneficial than taking the standard deduction, particularly if you have significant state and local taxes or mortgage interest.
Timing is also crucial for maximizing this benefit. Between now and 2028, consider strategically managing your Individual Retirement Account (IRA) withdrawals or exploring Roth conversions to make the most of the deduction while staying below the phaseout thresholds.
“When doing so, always keep an eye on your provisional income to avoid accidentally triggering higher taxes on your Social Security or higher Medicare IRMAA (income-related monthly adjustment amount) surcharges,” Moneywise noted further.
“Whether you prepare your own taxes or work with a professional, double-check that the deduction is applied correctly, especially on joint returns, to ensure you are capturing the full $12,000 for a married couple,” said the report.
A Reflective Moment From Donald Trump in Washington
A Reflective Moment From Donald Trump in Washington
Away from the roar of rallies and the sharp edges of televised clashes, the former president’s silence in that Washington room carried an unexpected charge.
The absence of performance revealed a different kind of presence—one defined less by dominance than by the gravity of memory, consequence, and possibility. For a few suspended moments, the usual choreography of power gave way to something unnervingly human.
Those watching weren’t looking at a headline, a poll number, or a caricature. They were watching a person who has altered the country’s trajectory sit with the invisible cost of those choices. In that stillness, leadership looked less like certainty and more like the burden of knowing there are no easy answers.
The city moved on, as it always does, but for those who witnessed it, that quiet pause said more than any speech.
Away from the roar of rallies and the sharp edges of televised clashes, the former president’s silence in that Washington room carried an unexpected charge. The absence of performance revealed a different kind of presence—one defined less by dominance than by the gravity of memory, consequence, and possibility. For a few suspended moments, the usual choreography of power gave way to something unnervingly human.
Those watching weren’t looking at a headline, a poll number, or a caricature. They were watching a person who has altered the country’s trajectory sit with the invisible cost of those choices. In that stillness, leadership looked less like certainty and more like the burden of knowing there are no easy answers. The city moved on, as it always does, but for those who witnessed it, that quiet pause said more than any speech.
Away from the roar of rallies and the sharp edges of televised clashes, the former president’s silence in that Washington room carried an unexpected charge.
The absence of performance revealed a different kind of presence—one defined less by dominance than by the gravity of memory, consequence, and possibility. For a few suspended moments, the usual choreography of power gave way to something unnervingly human.
Those watching weren’t looking at a headline, a poll number, or a caricature. They were watching a person who has altered the country’s trajectory sit with the invisible cost of those choices.
In that stillness, leadership looked less like certainty and more like the burden of knowing there are no easy answers. The city moved on, as it always does, but for those who witnessed it, that quiet pause said more than any speech.
