Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin, and several other Democratic congressmen recently introduced a bill that they say is necessary to protect journalists from violent attacks caused by the Trump administration’s “toxic culture.”

The bill, called the Journalist Protection Act, would make it a federal crime to intentionally cause bodily harm to a journalist, either while the journalist is taking part in newsgathering, or with the purpose of intimidating or impeding the journalist’s newsgathering.

Swalwell’s press release explains this measure “helps ensure law enforcement is able to punish those who interfere with newsgathering,” and cites a U.S. Press Freedom Tracker statistic of 44 physical attacks on journalists in 2017. Swalwell blamed these assaults on President Trump’s “antagonistic communications,” which allegedly “encourage others to think, regardless of their views, that violence against people engaged in journalism is more acceptable.”

The federal government has no general police power, of course, so the bill notes that the assault must be committed while the journalist is participating in or affecting interstate commerce. (How a potential assailant is supposed to make that determination isn’t specified.)

There are several major problems with this bill and the assertions Swalwell makes to support it.

First, there are no gaping loopholes in existing criminal law that allow people to freely assault journalists. Every state prohibits assault and battery, and unlike the narrow protections this bill lays out for physical harm, state laws cover destruction of property, threats of imminent violence, and stalking. There is little need to expand the already far-reaching federal criminal code by duplicating criminal statutes that are vigorously prosecuted at the state level.

It is also unclear whether the bill has any meaningful reach, given its limitation to actions connected with interstate commerce.

Second, this bill is based on a disgraceful, inexcusable mischaracterization of both the scope and the cause of violence against journalists. Even a half-hearted investigation of U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s allegation of 44 physical attacks on journalists last year shows how deviously the facts behind the numbers have been manipulated.

Thirteen of the “physical attacks” cited by the organization are allegations of wrongful arrest or excessive force by police officers. Even if all 13 incidents are truly civil rights violations (they are not), these are not the scenarios envisioned by average citizens hearing of a wave of violence against journalists. Nor are they scenarios from which the bill would protect journalists — police officers are generally immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while on duty.

Of the remaining 32 incidents, U.S. Press Freedom Tracker on several occasions lists single attacks on multiple, related journalists as separate, unique attacks. The number of distinct “attacks” is only 27.

When these 27 physical attacks are broken down by their relation to partisan rhetoric, Swalwell’s case for blaming Trump falls apart: Five attacks were committed by individuals with unknown or non-partisan motivations, eight involved individuals affiliated with the political right, 13 involved individuals affiliated with the political left, and one involved individuals from both sides — the right and left.

Further, the U.S. Freedom Press Tracker does not report data on attacks against journalists prior to 2017, rendering the number cited by Swalwell statistically meaningless.

Even if the Journalist Protection Act never becomes law, it is shameful to wield empty, manipulated statistics to score political points.

It is also irresponsible to suggest either that America is a dangerous place for journalists, or that Trump is to blame for this danger, and it is disrespects those journalists who do risk life, liberty and property every day to report the news.

In 2017, approximately 70 journalists were killed worldwide and another 262 imprisoned in connection with their journalistic work. Not one of those deaths or imprisonments occurred in the United States.

While the president has spoken out harshly against the media, the Trump administration has in no way substantively interfered with the Constitution’s right to a free press. The First Amendment remains a shining example of liberty even as countries such as France move to suppress anything the government deems “fake news.”

The Journalist Protection Act is a solution in need of a problem, which Swalwell recklessly tries to create through the very partisan rhetoric he claims the bill must counter.