Trafficking Survivors Relief Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 10, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to provide federal legal relief and a defense mechanism for human trafficking survivors whose criminal records or charges are a direct consequence of their exploitation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new federal mechanisms for victims of human trafficking to vacate certain convictions and expunge certain arrests that occurred as a direct result of their trafficking experience. It creates a new duress defense for trafficking victims in federal prosecutions and mandates reports on the implementation and impact of these new provisions. Additionally, it ensures that federal grants for legal representation can be used for post-conviction relief for trafficking survivors.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step to address the forced criminality often imposed on human trafficking victims, allowing them to rebuild their lives free from the burden of criminal records directly tied to their exploitation. They contend it recognizes the evolving tactics of traffickers and provides necessary legal pathways for survivors to achieve justice and access support without being penalized for crimes they were coerced into committing.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents, while generally supportive of anti-trafficking efforts, might raise concerns about the scope of expungement for certain 'Level B' (violent) offenses, even if only for arrests under specific conditions. They might argue that broad expungement or a new duress defense could inadvertently create loopholes or compromise public safety, or that it could be challenging to definitively prove the direct link between trafficking and the offense, potentially leading to misuse of the provisions.
The bill is moderately complex due to its legal language and procedural details, requiring focused attention to understand fully, which may exceed the time typically allotted for quick legislative review.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(b)
Motions to Vacate Convictions and Expunge Arrests
This provision allows human trafficking victims to petition a federal court to vacate convictions for 'Level A' offenses (non-violent crimes) or expunge records of arrest for 'Level A' offenses if the crime or alleged conduct was a direct result of their trafficking. For 'Level B' offenses (violent crimes, excluding those against children), only arrest records can be expunged, and only if the movant was acquitted, charges were dismissed, or charges were reduced to a Level A offense which was then acquitted or dismissed. This creates a formal legal pathway for survivors to clear their criminal records related to their exploitation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for survivors to escape the lasting stigma and barriers created by criminal records directly linked to their exploitation, enabling them to reintegrate into society and access vital resources. They emphasize that these crimes were committed under duress, not out of free will.
Critics contend
Some may argue that expunging records, particularly for 'Level B' offenses, even if only arrests, could pose challenges for law enforcement in tracking individuals with a history of violent conduct, potentially impacting public safety. Concerns might also be raised about the burden of proof and the potential for fraudulent claims, though the bill requires a preponderance of evidence.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to provide restorative justice for trafficking survivors with concerns about maintaining comprehensive criminal records for public safety and law enforcement purposes. It also navigates the challenge of proving a direct link between trafficking and criminal conduct.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(e)
Mitigating Factors for Sentence Reduction
This section allows a federal court to reduce the term of imprisonment for a 'covered prisoner' (convicted of a Level A or Level B offense) if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offense was committed as a direct result of the prisoner having been a victim of trafficking. The court must consider factors such as the nature of the danger to any person or the community, and the Government must conduct a particularized inquiry into the original sentencing facts.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(h)
Confidentiality of Movant
This provision mandates that motions filed under this section, along with all related documents, pleadings, and orders, must be filed under seal. Furthermore, no officer or employee may make available for public inspection any record that identifies the movant, ensuring the privacy and protection of human trafficking survivors seeking relief under this Act.
Section 3
Reporting Requirements
This section mandates several reports: U.S. Attorneys must report annually to the Attorney General on the number of vacatur/expungement motions filed, underlying offenses, responses, and court determinations. The Attorney General must report to Congress on human trafficking training for U.S. Attorneys. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must submit a report to Congress within three years assessing the impact of the new law, including the number of survivors filing motions, court determinations, and recommendations for improving access to relief and training.
Section 6, adding 18 U.S.C. 28
Human Trafficking Duress Defense
This section establishes a new federal defense for individuals prosecuted for a 'covered Federal offense' (Level A or Level B offense). A defendant can establish duress by demonstrating they were a victim of trafficking at the time of the offense. It also ensures that a failure to assert this defense does not preclude its use as a mitigating factor in sentencing or post-conviction relief, and does not disqualify an individual from federally funded victim aid programs. Proceedings related to this defense are to be placed under seal.
The provisions for vacating convictions, expunging arrests, and reducing sentences apply to any conviction or arrest occurring before, on, or after the date of enactment.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for applicability clauses, but its placement at the very end might lead a casual reader to miss its significant retroactive impact.
Case for: Supporters argue that retroactivity is essential to provide relief to the vast majority of trafficking survivors who have already suffered and accumulated criminal records prior to the bill's enactment. Without it, the bill's impact would be severely limited.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the retroactivity of victim relief measures, especially when they address past injustices, though some might note the increased initial caseload for courts.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the pool of eligible individuals to include all past federal trafficking survivors with relevant criminal records, rather than only future cases.
An affidavit or sworn testimony from an anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician can 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 is a procedural detail, often placed within evidentiary rules. However, its significance for survivors, who may lack traditional documentation, makes it a key element that could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this is critical for survivors who often lack formal documentation of their trafficking experience due to the coercive nature of their exploitation. Relying on service provider testimony makes the relief accessible to those most in need.
Case against: Some might argue that relying solely on an affidavit, even from a service provider, without corroborating evidence, could potentially open the door to less rigorous scrutiny, though the court must still find it 'credible'.
Estimated impact: Significantly lowers the evidentiary barrier for many trafficking survivors, making the relief provisions more practically accessible.
A person may not be required to pay any filing fee, service charge, copay fee, processing fee, or any other charge for filing a motion under this section.
Section 2, adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(g)
Why it matters:Fee waivers are often placed in administrative or miscellaneous sections. However, for a vulnerable population like trafficking survivors, the absence of fees is a critical access point.
Case for: Supporters argue that waiving all fees is essential to ensure that financial barriers do not prevent trafficking survivors, who often have limited resources, from accessing the legal relief provided by the Act.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against fee waivers for vulnerable populations seeking justice, as the administrative costs are generally considered a necessary public expense.
Estimated impact: Removes a significant financial barrier for all eligible trafficking survivors, ensuring equitable access to the legal process.