Technical corrections only. The diff reflects the bill's enactment into Public Law 119-73, adding public law metadata, approval date, and legislative history. No substantive policy change between v5 and v6.
Trafficking Survivors Relief Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 23, 2026
Bottom line
This Act provides critical legal avenues for human trafficking survivors to clear their criminal records and mitigate sentences for offenses committed while under coercion, aiming to facilitate their recovery and reintegration.
What it actually does
This Act establishes a federal process for victims of human trafficking to vacate convictions for certain non-violent federal offenses (Level A) and expunge arrests for both non-violent (Level A) and some violent (Level B, excluding child victims) offenses, provided the crime was a direct result of being trafficked. It also allows for sentence reductions for currently incarcerated trafficking victims and creates a specific duress defense for trafficking victims in future federal prosecutions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is a crucial step to address forced criminality, recognizing that victims are often coerced into committing crimes by their traffickers. It helps survivors rebuild their lives by removing barriers to employment, housing, and education, aligning the justice system with the realities of human trafficking and promoting rehabilitation over continued punishment.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the potential for abuse of the expungement process or the difficulty in proving direct causation between trafficking and the offense, especially for violent crimes. Some may argue that vacating convictions, even for non-violent offenses, could undermine public safety or the integrity of the justice system if not applied rigorously, potentially leading to unintended consequences.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A
Federal Expungement and Vacatur for Trafficking Victims
This provision creates a new federal process allowing human trafficking victims to ask a court to vacate convictions for certain non-violent federal offenses (Level A) or expunge records of arrest for Level A offenses and some Level B (violent, non-child victim) offenses. The court must find by a preponderance of evidence that the offense or alleged conduct was a direct result of the person being a victim of trafficking, providing a pathway for survivors to clear their criminal records.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is essential for justice, recognizing that victims are often forced into criminal activity by their traffickers. It helps survivors escape the cycle of exploitation by removing criminal records that impede their ability to secure housing, employment, and education, fostering true rehabilitation.
Critics contend
Some may argue that vacating convictions, even for non-violent offenses, could set a precedent that undermines the finality of criminal judgments or poses challenges for law enforcement in tracking criminal history, potentially impacting public safety records.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for justice and rehabilitation for trafficking victims against concerns about the integrity of criminal records and potential administrative burden on the justice system.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(e)
Mitigating Factors for Sentence Reduction
This provision allows a court to reduce the term of imprisonment for a 'covered prisoner' (an individual convicted and imprisoned for a Level A or Level B offense) if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offense was a direct result of the prisoner having been a victim of trafficking. The court must consider factors like public safety and victim impact before granting a reduction.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(h)
Confidentiality Protections for Movants
This provision mandates that motions, documents, pleadings, and orders related to vacatur or expungement under this section be filed under seal. It also prohibits federal officers or employees from making public any report, paper, picture, photograph, court file, or other document that identifies the movant, ensuring privacy for trafficking survivors.
Section 6, adding 18 U.S.C. 28
Human Trafficking Duress Defense
This provision establishes that in a prosecution for a covered federal offense (Level A or Level B), a defendant can establish duress by demonstrating they were a victim of trafficking at the time of the offense. It also ensures that failure to assert this defense doesn't preclude using it as a mitigating factor later or disqualify individuals from federal aid for trafficking victims, providing comprehensive protections.
Section 3
Mandated Reports on Act's Impact and Training
This section requires the Attorney General to submit reports detailing the number of vacatur/expungement motions filed, their outcomes, and professional training on human trafficking indicators for U.S. attorneys. It also mandates a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report within three years to assess the Act's overall impact and recommend improvements for post-conviction relief and training.
Defines 'level A offense' as a federal offense that is not a violent crime, and 'level B offense' as a federal offense that is a violent crime but specifically excluding violent crimes of which a child was a victim. These definitions are crucial for determining eligibility for vacatur/expungement.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(a)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the specific exclusions for Level B offenses are highly consequential for the scope of relief.
Case for: Supporters argue these definitions appropriately target relief to victims while maintaining protections for the most vulnerable (child victims of violent crime), striking a necessary balance.
Case against: Critics might argue the exclusion of violent crimes against children from Level B expungement is too restrictive, as some trafficking victims might be coerced into such crimes, or conversely, that any expungement for violent crimes is too permissive.
Estimated impact: Directly determines the scope of eligibility for relief under the Act, impacting potentially thousands of federal criminal cases by defining which offenses qualify for vacatur or expungement.
States that the new section (18 U.S.C. 3771A) 'shall apply to any conviction or arrest occurring before, on, or after the date of enactment of this section,' making the relief retroactive.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(i)
Why it matters:While a standard 'applicability' clause, its retroactive nature is highly significant and could be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main provisions.
Case for: Proponents emphasize that retroactivity is crucial for addressing historical injustices and providing relief to survivors who have long carried the burden of past convictions or arrests directly linked to their trafficking experience, regardless of when they occurred.
Case against: Some might argue that retroactive application could create administrative complexities for courts and law enforcement, requiring review of old cases, or could be seen as undermining the finality of past judgments, potentially creating legal uncertainty.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the pool of eligible individuals to include those with older records, potentially affecting a large number of survivors who have been living with these convictions for years.
Specifies that an affidavit or sworn testimony from an anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician 'shall be sufficient evidence' to vacate a conviction or expunge an arrest if the court finds it credible and no other evidence is readily available.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(b)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This detail significantly impacts the evidentiary burden for movants, making it easier for survivors to prove their case, especially if other evidence is scarce due to the nature of their exploitation.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is vital because trafficking victims often lack traditional documentation or may be reluctant to engage with law enforcement, making expert testimony a practical and compassionate evidentiary standard for justice.
Case against: Critics might express concern that relying primarily on a single affidavit, even from an expert, could lead to insufficient scrutiny or potential for fraudulent claims, especially if 'no other evidence is readily available' is interpreted too broadly, potentially compromising judicial rigor.
Estimated impact: Lowers the evidentiary bar for survivors, potentially increasing the number of successful motions for vacatur and expungement, thereby expanding access to relief.