ADOPT Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 1, 2025
Bottom line
The ADOPT Act aims to curb exploitative practices in private domestic interstate adoptions by criminalizing specific activities of unlicensed intermediaries and regulating financial transactions to protect vulnerable parties.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize specific unlawful adoption practices, including providing adoption intermediary services or placing adoption advertisements without proper licensing, and making unauthorized payments exceeding $2,500 to a placing parent before professional consultation. It establishes federal jurisdiction for these offenses based on interstate commerce connections and sets penalties for violations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is essential to protect individuals and families impacted by private domestic interstate adoption from exploitation by unlicensed and unregulated adoption intermediaries. They contend it ensures that individuals seeking assistance have access to licensed and regulated providers, thereby preventing the commodification of children in adoptions.
Opponents contend
While the bill enjoys bipartisan support, potential critics might argue that it could inadvertently restrict legitimate adoption avenues, increase costs for families, or create unnecessary federal overreach into an area traditionally regulated by states, potentially limiting choices for prospective adoptive parents and placing parents.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly articulated, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its main impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 228A(b)
Criminalization of Unlicensed Adoption Intermediary Services
This provision makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide 'adoption intermediary services'—defined as acting as a link between placing parents and prospective adoptive parents for compensation—unless the provider is a licensed public or private child-placing agency, a 501(c)(3) organization under contract with a public agency, a licensed attorney in the state, or an accredited intercountry adoption service provider. This aims to ensure that only regulated entities facilitate adoptions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation by unregulated actors in the adoption process, ensuring that all services meet professional and ethical standards.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that by criminalizing unlicensed intermediaries, the bill could inadvertently limit choices for families and birth parents, potentially making adoptions more difficult or expensive by reducing the overall pool of available services.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of consumer protection and ethical standards in adoption against potential concerns about limiting access to services or increasing the cost and complexity of the adoption process.
Sec. 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 228A(c)
Criminalization of Unlicensed Adoption Advertising
This provision criminalizes knowingly placing 'adoption advertising'—defined as paid communications soliciting parents or offering disbursements for adoption—unless the advertiser is a licensed public or private child-placing agency, a 501(c)(3) organization under contract, a licensed attorney in the state where the advertisement appears, or an accredited intercountry adoption service provider. This aims to prevent deceptive or exploitative advertising practices.
Sec. 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 228A(d)
Regulation of Unauthorized Payments to Placing Parents
This provision criminalizes knowingly providing anything of value, including money or services (like medical care), exceeding $2,500 to a placing parent in connection with the birth of a child and in furtherance of an adoption. This prohibition applies if the payment is made before the placing parent has consulted with a licensed private child-placing agency or an attorney licensed in their state. Exceptions are made for payments by or in cooperation with licensed agencies/attorneys or public assistance programs.
This subsection establishes the federal jurisdiction for the new criminal offenses by requiring a connection to interstate or foreign commerce. This includes instances where the defendant, placing parent, or prospective adoptive parent traveled in interstate commerce, or knowingly used means, channels, facilities, or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., internet, wire communication, payments affecting interstate commerce) in furtherance of the prohibited conduct.
Sec. 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 228A(e)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clauses to ensure the federal government has the constitutional basis (via the Commerce Clause) to enact and enforce criminal statutes that might otherwise fall under state jurisdiction.
Case for: Proponents argue that this clause is essential for the bill to effectively address exploitative practices in private domestic interstate adoptions, where activities often cross state lines and require a consistent federal response that state-by-state regulation cannot fully provide.
Case against: Some might argue that, despite the interstate nexus, this represents an expansion of federal power into an area traditionally governed by state family law, potentially leading to conflicts or an overly broad application of federal criminal statutes.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that virtually all private domestic interstate adoption activities, if they involve the prohibited conduct, fall under federal jurisdiction, significantly broadening the reach of the new criminal offenses.
This 'Rule of Construction' clarifies that the new federal criminalization of unlawful adoption practices does not affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) or limit intercountry adoption programs and services authorized under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000. It also explicitly states that nothing in the section prohibits a State or local government from enacting or enforcing requirements that are more stringent than those established in this Act.
Sec. 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 228A(g)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clarifying language to prevent unintended conflicts with existing federal laws and to preserve the authority of state and local governments to implement stricter regulations.
Case for: Proponents argue that this clause is vital for ensuring that the new federal law does not inadvertently undermine the protections afforded to Native American children under ICWA or disrupt the established framework for intercountry adoptions. It also respects states' rights to impose higher standards for adoption practices.
Case against: There is no direct case against this provision, as it serves to clarify and protect existing legal frameworks and state authority, rather than imposing new burdens.
Estimated impact: This provision maintains the integrity and application of critical existing federal laws (ICWA, Intercountry Adoption Act) and preserves the ability of state and local governments to enact more robust protections or regulations in the adoption sphere.