Crime and Law Enforcement Bills

Sponsored by Ro Khanna

Current federal law does not require the Department of Justice to publicly disclose documents and records related to Jeffrey Epstein investigations and prosecutions. The DOJ typically withholds such materials under various legal authorities, including privacy protections, national security classifications, and ongoing investigation concerns. Public access to these records has been limited, with some materials remaining sealed or classified years after key prosecutions and settlements concluded. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the Attorney General to release all unclassified DOJ records relating to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, named individuals connected to Epstein's activities, entities with ties to his networks, immunity agreements, internal DOJ communications about charging decisions, document destruction, and Epstein's detention and death. The Attorney General must make these materials publicly available in searchable and downloadable format within 30 days of enactment. The law explicitly prohibits withholding documents based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity to government officials or public figures. The Attorney General may still redact information to protect crime victims' privacy, child sexual abuse materials, active investigations or prosecutions, graphic images of death or injury, and properly classified national security information. However, all redactions require written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress. The law directs the Attorney General to declassify covered information to the maximum extent possible, and to release unclassified summaries of any information deemed too sensitive to declassify. Within 15 days of completing the release, the Attorney General must report to Congress on all categories of records released and withheld, summarize redactions made, and list all government officials and politically exposed persons named in released materials without redaction.

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025

Sponsored by Richard Hudson

Currently, federal law allows individual states to set their own rules for concealed carry permits. Some states issue permits to residents and recognize permits from other states; others issue permits only to residents; and a few states allow residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit. When someone travels across state lines with a concealed firearm, they must comply with the laws of each state they enter. This creates a patchwork of regulations where a person legally carrying a concealed handgun in their home state may violate another state's law simply by traveling there, even if they hold a valid permit from their home state. This bill amends Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code, by adding a new section establishing federal reciprocity for concealed carry. The bill requires that any person who is not prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, who carries a valid photo identification document, and who holds a valid concealed carry license or permit from their home state—or is entitled to carry concealed in their home state without a permit—may carry a concealed handgun in any other state that either allows residents to apply for a concealed carry permit or does not prohibit concealed carry. The bill specifies that a person carrying under this reciprocity provision cannot be arrested or detained for violating state or local firearms laws unless there is probable cause to believe they are carrying in a manner not permitted by the bill. The bill takes effect 90 days after enactment. It preserves state and private property rights by allowing states to prohibit firearms on government property and allowing private property owners to restrict firearms on their land. The bill also shifts the burden of proof to prosecutors, requiring them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person's conduct violated the bill's conditions, and it allows defendants who successfully assert this protection to recover attorney's fees. Additionally, individuals can sue in federal court for damages if they are deprived of rights under this section, with prevailing plaintiffs recovering attorney's fees. The bill exempts reciprocity carriers from federal restrictions on firearms in schools and allows them to carry on certain federal lands including national parks, wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Land Management property.

Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

Federal criminal law currently contains hundreds of offenses that do not explicitly state what mental state—such as intent, knowledge, or recklessness—a defendant must have to be convicted. Courts have struggled to interpret these gaps, sometimes requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, and sometimes allowing conviction based on negligence or even strict liability with no mental state requirement at all. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for defendants, prosecutors, and judges about what must be proven at trial. The Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025 amends Chapter 1 of Title 18, United States Code, by adding a new Section 28 that establishes a default rule for federal criminal offenses lacking an express mental state requirement. The bill requires the Government to prove that a defendant acted "knowingly" with respect to any element of a covered offense—meaning the defendant was aware of the conduct's nature, circumstances, or results—unless the offense text specifies a different mental state or Congress clearly intended to impose no mental state requirement at all. The bill defines "knowingly" and "willfully" with precision and applies this default across all federal crimes punishable by imprisonment or a fine of at least $2,500. The law takes effect upon enactment and applies to offenses committed on or after that date, with limited exceptions for cases already in trial or concluded before enactment. The bill does not create new crimes or penalties; instead, it clarifies the mental state prosecutors must prove, potentially making convictions harder to obtain in cases where statutes are silent on intent. The change affects prosecutions across federal agencies—from the Department of Justice to regulatory agencies enforcing criminal provisions—and may require prosecutors to gather additional evidence of a defendant's knowledge or awareness. Existing convictions are generally protected unless applying the new rule would retroactively punish innocent conduct or increase punishment.

End Endless Criminal Statutes Act

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

Federal law contains numerous criminal statutes that impose penalties for conduct that may no longer serve a clear public purpose. These provisions range from decades-old regulations addressing specific commodities to obscure prohibitions on minor conduct. For example, current law criminalizes writing a check for less than one dollar, selling colored margarine in non-triangular packaging, removing stamps from mail, wearing a postal carrier uniform, and sledding on Capitol grounds. Many of these statutes date to the early 20th century and reflect regulatory concerns that have become obsolete or are enforced so rarely that they create unnecessary complexity in the federal criminal code. This bill repeals nine separate federal criminal provisions and amends two others to narrow their scope. Congress repeals the prohibition on writing checks under one dollar, the margarine packaging requirements, the ban on discarding produce, the prohibition on removing postage stamps, the ban on making coins of original design, the sledding restriction on Capitol grounds, and the prohibition on boarding vessels before arrival. Additionally, the bill amends the statute criminalizing the wearing of postal carrier uniforms by adding an intent requirement—making it illegal only when someone wears the uniform with intent to commit a federal offense—and removes language that criminalized making coins of original design from a separate statute. These repeals take effect upon enactment and require no implementation timeline or funding. The changes eliminate criminal liability for conduct currently prosecutable under federal law, though enforcement of these provisions has been minimal or nonexistent in recent years. Removing these statutes simplifies the federal criminal code and reduces the theoretical criminal exposure for ordinary conduct. The narrowing amendment to the postal uniform statute preserves criminal liability for deceptive impersonation while eliminating liability for mere wearing of the uniform without fraudulent intent. No existing programs or markets are directly affected, as these provisions have not been central to federal enforcement priorities.

Knife Owners’ Protection Act of 2025

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

Currently, knife transportation laws vary dramatically across states and localities. Some states prohibit certain blade lengths, designs, or types entirely, while others allow broad carry rights. A person legally transporting a knife through one state may face arrest in an adjacent state with stricter rules, even if the knife remains secured in a vehicle or luggage. This patchwork of conflicting regulations creates legal uncertainty for travelers, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and others who lawfully possess knives in their home states but may inadvertently violate laws while crossing state lines. The Knife Owners' Protection Act of 2025 establishes a federal right to transport knives interstate, overriding state and local restrictions. The law requires that individuals not otherwise prohibited by federal law may transport knives from any place where they may lawfully possess them to any other place where lawful possession is permitted, provided the knives are properly secured during transit. For motor vehicles, knives must be inaccessible from the passenger compartment or locked in a container, glove compartment, or console. For air travel, knives must be in locked containers outside the passenger cabin. For other transportation methods, knives must be in locked containers. Emergency safety knives designed for cutting seat belts may be carried in vehicle passenger compartments but remain prohibited from aircraft cabins. The law takes effect immediately upon enactment with no specific funding mechanism required, as it primarily restricts state enforcement rather than creating new federal programs. Individuals arrested or detained in violation of the act's protections may sue for damages and recover attorney's fees if they prevail. States and localities retain authority to enforce their own knife laws against individuals not in compliance with the federal transportation requirements, but cannot arrest someone merely for possessing a lawfully-owned knife during interstate travel if it is properly secured. The burden of proof falls on states to demonstrate non-compliance with the act's specific storage and transport requirements in criminal proceedings.

Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

Sponsored by Juan Ciscomani

Currently, federal law does not specifically criminalize fleeing from law enforcement while driving near the U.S. border. While general laws address evasion of police and reckless driving, there is no dedicated federal offense targeting individuals who intentionally flee from Border Patrol agents or officers assisting them during motor vehicle pursuits in border regions. This gap means prosecutions rely on piecemeal charges that may not adequately reflect the specific danger posed by high-speed chases involving federal immigration enforcement. The Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act adds a new federal crime to title 18 of the U.S. Code. The statute requires that any person operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border who intentionally flees from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent or any federal, state, or local officer assisting Border Patrol commits a federal offense. The Department of Justice will prosecute violations. Base penalties include up to two years imprisonment and fines. If serious bodily injury results, sentences increase to a minimum of five years and up to 20 years. If death occurs, sentences range from a minimum of 10 years to life imprisonment. The bill also amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make conviction of this offense grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of non-citizens, and renders violators ineligible for any immigration relief, including asylum. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security must jointly submit annual reports to Congress documenting the number of violations, charges filed, apprehensions, penalties sought, and penalties imposed. Implementation begins upon enactment, with no new appropriations specified. The reporting requirement creates ongoing data collection on enforcement patterns in border regions.

HALT Fentanyl Act

Sponsored by H. Griffith

Under current law, the Controlled Substances Act establishes a scheduling system that classifies drugs by their abuse potential and medical utility. Fentanyl and its known chemical variants are listed individually in Schedule I, the most restrictive category. However, chemists can create new fentanyl-like substances by making minor structural modifications to the fentanyl molecule—a practice known as "designer drug" synthesis. These novel compounds often fall into legal gray areas because they are not yet specifically named in the scheduling system, allowing them to circulate before the Drug Enforcement Administration can formally add them to the controlled list. The HALT Fentanyl Act amends the Controlled Substances Act to automatically place any substance structurally related to fentanyl into Schedule I, regardless of whether it has been individually identified. The Attorney General gains authority to publish a list of known fentanyl-related substances in the Federal Register for reference, but the absence of a substance from that list does not protect it from control if it meets the chemical definition. The bill defines "fentanyl-related substance" to include any compound that modifies fentanyl's structure through five categories of chemical changes: replacing the phenyl ring, substituting the phenethyl group, modifying the piperidine ring, replacing the aniline ring, or replacing the N-propionyl group. Substances already controlled by the Attorney General or listed in other schedules remain exempt from this blanket scheduling. The law takes effect immediately upon enactment. The Attorney General must establish an electronic submission system for researchers to notify the agency of fentanyl-related substance research. Researchers already registered for Schedule I or II work can begin qualifying research 30 days after notifying the Attorney General; those without prior registration receive a decision within 45 days. The bill also streamlines research registration by allowing multiple researchers at the same institution to work under a single registration, permitting research across multiple sites in the same city or county under one license, and eliminating redundant inspections when researchers add a second controlled substance in the same or higher schedule. The Department of Justice Inspector General must report within one year on fentanyl research conducted under these expedited procedures.

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Sponsored by Ann Wagner

Current federal law, primarily the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, establishes that any infant born alive during an abortion procedure is considered a legal person entitled to constitutional protections. However, the law does not specify what medical care practitioners must provide to such infants, nor does it establish clear penalties for practitioners who fail to provide care. This ambiguity has created uncertainty about the legal obligations of healthcare providers when a child is born alive during an abortion or attempted abortion procedure. This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by inserting a new section 1532 that requires any healthcare practitioner present when a child is born alive during an abortion to exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the child's life and health as would be provided to any other newborn at the same gestational age. The bill directs practitioners to immediately transport and admit the child to a hospital following provision of care. It also mandates that healthcare practitioners and employees of hospitals, physician offices, or abortion clinics who know of a violation must immediately report it to state or federal law enforcement. The bill establishes criminal penalties of up to five years imprisonment and fines for violations, with intentional killing of a born-alive child treated as murder under existing homicide statutes. The law takes effect upon enactment with no specified implementation timeline or dedicated funding. Violations trigger both criminal prosecution and civil liability, allowing the woman on whom the abortion was performed to sue for damages including actual injuries, statutory damages of three times the abortion cost, and punitive damages. The bill creates a private right of action with attorney's fee awards for prevailing plaintiffs and potential fee awards against defendants in frivolous cases. The mother cannot be prosecuted under this section. These provisions operate alongside existing state and federal law enforcement mechanisms, potentially increasing caseloads for prosecutors and courts handling both criminal and civil disputes.

Secret Service Prioritization Act of 2025

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

The United States Secret Service, established under the Department of Homeland Security, currently investigates a broad range of federal crimes including counterfeiting, financial fraud, identity theft, and violations of laws protecting U.S. currency and securities. The Secret Service also protects the President and other designated officials under separate statutory authority. This dual mission—law enforcement and protective services—has been the agency's structure for decades, with the Secret Service maintaining specialized expertise in financial crimes and fraud detection across federal banking institutions and electronic fund transfer systems. The Secret Service Prioritization Act of 2025 transfers the Federal Bureau of Investigation's authority to detect and arrest persons violating federal counterfeiting, financial fraud, and identity theft statutes. Specifically, the bill directs the FBI Director to assume Secret Service responsibilities for investigating violations of counterfeiting laws, bank fraud statutes, electronic fund transfer fraud, access device fraud, false identification documents, and fraud against federally insured financial institutions. The bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to narrow the Secret Service's investigative mandate, leaving the agency with authority only to detect and arrest violators of laws protecting the President and other officials. The transfer requires agreement between the Attorney General and FBI Director and does not affect other federal law enforcement agencies' existing authority over these crimes. The transfer takes effect 30 days after enactment, with a transition period allowing the FBI and Secret Service to coordinate the handoff of personnel, assets, and ongoing investigations. The Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the FBI Director, directs the allocation of Secret Service assets to the FBI. Existing Secret Service contracts, permits, licenses, and administrative actions remain valid unless modified by law. Pending investigations and civil actions continue under the same terms. Secret Service employees may be hired directly by the FBI without standard competitive hiring procedures. All statutory reporting requirements that explicitly reference the Secret Service for transferred functions continue to apply to the FBI after the transfer.

Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act of 2025

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

Currently, federal law contains limited restrictions on abortion procedures. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits a specific procedure but does not establish broader requirements for physicians performing abortions or for facilities where abortions occur. Many abortion providers operate under varying state regulations, and there is no uniform federal standard requiring physicians to have hospital admitting privileges or to inform patients about follow-up care locations. This patchwork of rules creates inconsistency across states and leaves gaps in federal oversight of abortion provision. This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to establish new federal requirements for physicians and abortion clinics. It requires any physician performing an abortion to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 15 miles of both their principal medical office and the abortion facility, and to notify the patient of that hospital's location for potential follow-up care. Physicians who knowingly violate these requirements face fines and up to two years in prison. The bill also requires abortion clinics receiving any federal funds to be state-licensed and to comply with ambulatory surgery center standards under Medicare rules, though state health boards may waive certain structural requirements. Notably, the bill explicitly prohibits prosecuting women who undergo the procedure. These requirements take effect upon enactment with no specified transition period. Abortion clinics must immediately meet state licensing and ambulatory surgery center compliance standards to continue receiving federal funds—affecting Medicaid reimbursements and other federal assistance. Physicians must secure hospital admitting privileges, which may prove difficult in rural areas or regions with limited hospital capacity, potentially reducing abortion access in those locations. The bill does not appropriate new funding for implementation, placing compliance costs on providers and states. Existing state abortion regulations remain in effect alongside these federal standards, creating a dual regulatory framework.

SERVE Our Communities Act

Sponsored by Claudia Tenney

Under current federal law, the Department of Justice provides grants to states and local governments for criminal justice initiatives through various programs, including those authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007. However, there is no dedicated federal grant program specifically designed to incentivize jurisdictions that adopt policies focused on preventing repeat violence by dangerous offenders. States and localities currently make independent decisions about bail and pretrial release standards, with varying approaches to whether courts may consider public safety risk when setting conditions for release. The SERVE Our Communities Act authorizes the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to award grants to states and units of local government that meet specific eligibility criteria. To qualify, a jurisdiction must allow state courts or magistrates to consider the danger a defendant poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions, and must have taken steps during the previous calendar year to prevent repeat offenses by violent offenders. Eligible steps include enacting laws that permit danger-based bail considerations, expanding law enforcement and prosecutorial hiring and retention, or administering public education programs to combat anti-police sentiment and improve community-police relations. Grant recipients may use funds for purposes already authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007, which covers reentry and rehabilitation programs. The bill authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2031. Implementation begins once appropriations are made, with the Bureau of Justice Assistance responsible for administering the program and determining which jurisdictions meet eligibility requirements. The grants operate alongside existing criminal justice funding streams and do not modify existing bail or sentencing law—they simply create financial incentives for jurisdictions that adopt or maintain specific policies related to pretrial detention and violence prevention.

ALVIN Act

Sponsored by Andy Biggs

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, like many local prosecutors' offices across the country, receives federal funding through various grant programs and initiatives administered by the Department of Justice and other federal agencies. These funds typically support law enforcement operations, victim services, prosecution of federal crimes, and participation in joint task forces. Currently, no federal statute explicitly prohibits funding to specific local prosecutors' offices, though Congress retains the power to restrict appropriations through the budget process. This bill prohibits the Department of Justice and all other federal agencies from awarding or making available any federal funds to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The bill also directs the Attorney General to rescind all unobligated balances previously allocated to the office and to recover all federal funds expended on the office's operations dating back to January 1, 2022. This creates an immediate funding cutoff and requires the office to repay the federal government for expenditures over a roughly three-year lookback period. Implementation would begin upon enactment. The Attorney General would identify all federal grants, cooperative agreements, and other funding mechanisms supporting the Manhattan DA's Office and terminate them. The office would face demands for repayment of funds spent since early 2022, which could affect its operational budget and staffing. The practical effect would be to remove the office from federal grant programs and joint federal-local law enforcement initiatives, potentially disrupting ongoing investigations and prosecutions involving federal partners.