National Strategy for Combating Scams Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
This bill mandates a comprehensive, coordinated federal strategy to combat scams, aiming to improve inter-agency cooperation, data collection, and public protection against fraud.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a working group, including representatives from at least 17 federal agencies, to develop a comprehensive National Strategy for Combating Scams. The strategy must define 'scam,' evaluate risks, propose prevention methods, define agency roles, plan for coordinated data collection and reporting, enhance public-private and inter-governmental coordination, and improve victim recovery and cross-border enforcement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current fragmented federal response to scams is inefficient and ineffective, leading to significant financial and emotional harm to millions of Americans, particularly older adults. They contend that a unified national strategy, as mandated by this bill, is essential to improve coordination, leverage resources, and develop evidence-based practices to combat the growing threat of scams, especially those involving advanced technologies like AI.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition is stated in the provided text. Potential opponents might argue that creating another working group adds bureaucracy without guaranteeing effective action, or that existing agencies already possess sufficient mandates and resources if properly utilized.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its provisions.
Section 3(a)
FBI-led Working Group for National Strategy
This provision directs the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a working group within 90 days of the bill's enactment. This group will include representatives from at least 17 specified federal agencies, such as the FTC, CFPB, HHS, and Treasury, along with any other relevant agencies, to collaboratively develop a National Strategy for Combating Scams.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that centralizing the strategy development under the FBI, with broad inter-agency participation, is crucial for overcoming existing fragmentation and ensuring a comprehensive approach to scam prevention and enforcement.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that an FBI-led group might overemphasize law enforcement aspects at the expense of consumer protection or prevention, or that such a large group could become unwieldy and slow to act.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for centralized leadership with the necessity of diverse agency expertise and mandates.
Section 3(b)
Mandated Components of the National Strategy
This section outlines the specific requirements for the National Strategy. It must incorporate feedback from a wide range of community stakeholders (including scam survivors, older adults, law enforcement, businesses, and experts), establish a common definition of 'scam,' evaluate risks, define agency roles, plan for government-wide scam estimates, ensure coordinated complaint reporting and data collection, increase public-private and inter-governmental coordination, enhance victim recovery support, and improve cross-border enforcement.
Section 3(b)(2) and Section 4
Adoption of a Unified Scam Definition
The bill requires the working group to establish a common definition of 'scam' for use in the National Strategy and by the FBI, FTC, and CFPB. This definition must be accompanied by an analysis of its selection and an evaluation of its broader applicability to other agencies. Within one year of the strategy's publication, the FBI, FTC, and CFPB must adopt this common definition, and update it if the working group revises it in the future.
Section 3(b)(7)(C) and (D)
Enhanced Data Collection, Aggregation, and Public-Private Sharing
The strategy must include a plan to ensure harmonized, adequate, timely, and accurate data collection and aggregation on scams across federal agencies. This includes better identifying and collecting data on scam types, dollar losses, payment methods, and promoting federal law enforcement data interoperability, potentially using AI. It also requires increasing coordination with the private sector by facilitating rapid data sharing from technology, financial, and telecommunication companies for investigations, and coordinating preemptive enforcement actions.
Section 3(b)(8) and (9)
Support for Victims and International Cooperation
The National Strategy must evaluate ways for the federal government to partner with state, local, and tribal law enforcement, financial institutions, and technology companies to support victim recovery, including providing clear and accessible resources for assistance and redress. Additionally, it requires enhancing coordination with foreign countries to combat large-scale scams originating abroad that target persons in the United States, aiming to improve cross-border enforcement.
The National Strategy for Combating Scams must include an analysis of the legislative, regulatory, or administrative changes necessary to implement the strategy and enable a comprehensive and coordinated federal response to scams.
Section 3(b)(10)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for bills that establish a strategic framework, as it acknowledges that the initial bill may not contain all necessary legal authorities.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures the strategy is actionable and identifies any gaps in current law or regulation that hinder effective scam combatting, providing a roadmap for future legislative efforts.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision defers critical decision-making, potentially leading to delays in addressing identified issues, or that it could be used to justify future expansions of federal power.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could lead to future legislation or regulatory changes impacting numerous sectors and individuals, depending on the identified needs.
The National Strategy's plan for harmonized data collection must include ways to modernize law enforcement data and reporting, 'including through the use of artificial intelligence and other innovative technology to enhance data synthesis.'
Section 3(b)(7)(C)(v)
Why it matters:It's a technical detail within a larger policy framework, reflecting an expectation for modernizing tools rather than a primary policy directive.
Case for: Proponents argue that leveraging AI is essential for federal agencies to keep pace with the sophisticated methods criminals use, including AI-driven scams, and to efficiently process vast amounts of data to identify patterns and threats.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the ethical implications of AI use in law enforcement, potential biases in algorithms, data privacy issues, and the significant resources required for secure and effective AI implementation.
Estimated impact: Potentially transformative for federal agencies' analytical capabilities, but also carries risks related to data security and civil liberties.