Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Sex Trafficking

House Passes New Human Trafficking Bill

Here's what's in the $1 billion reauthorization package.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 7.29.2022 12:20 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Rep. Chris Smith, who sponsored the latest human traffficking reauthorizaiton in the House | Pool/Sipa USA/Newscom
(Pool/Sipa USA/Newscom)

The House of Representatives has passed its latest anti–human trafficking bill, with just 20 lawmakers (all Republican) voting against it. The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022 is the latest reauthorization of the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and, like the original, this one was sponsored by New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith. Its main focus is extending and expanding spending for various trafficking-related programs this year through 2026.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) said he voted no on the bill because "there was no cost offset in the bill for the additional spending, and much of the money goes to USAID, an organization I do not support."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) objected, among other things, to the bill giving money to groups that work with Big Tech companies. "I want to protect children and stop these abductions, but this $500 million Democrat bill won't do it and only throws money at the problem," she said.

Greene's estimate of the bill's cost may be a bit low. According to Rep. Karen Bass' (D–Calif.) comments on the House floor, the bill authorizes "$1 billion to fund programs across the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services." And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–Texas) said it will provide "more than $1 billion over five years." By my calculation, it authorizes $1,037,500,000 in spending for trafficking-related programs and $30 million on International Megan's Law programs (which notify foreign countries when certain sorts of sex offenders plan to travel there).

Overall, the 2022 version of the human trafficking bill is shorter than many earlier iterations and lower on the sort of carceral solutions and surveillance initiatives that defined them. A significant portion of it is devoted to grants for programs to help trafficking victims move on with their lives—something that may be better done by entities other than the federal government, but at least isn't simply throwing more money at cops for prostitution stings. And a section pressuring hotels to train staff on spotting human trafficking (an endeavor without a great track record) was removed from the draft bill before it passed.

But there are still some potentially troubling bits of the bill, including repeated references to "trafficking transmitted through technology."

Activists and lawyers have been trying to broaden the scope of sex trafficking laws to cover not just underage or forced prostitution but also the transmission of certain pornographic images by commercial tech platforms. Note that we aren't talking about entities that intentionally broadcast illegal content. The idea is to use sex trafficking laws against a wide range of businesses—including user-generated porn clearinghouses (like Pornhub), creator-driven content sites (like OnlyFans), and mainstream social media sites that allow private messaging or adult content (like Twitter)—if users of these services share sexual content featuring minors or people who have not consented to having their images shared.

Because the language in the federal criminal law against sex trafficking is so broad, this might be possible. It makes it illegal not only to directly or indirectly engage in sex trafficking but to benefit financially or receive anything of value from "participation in a venture" which "recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person" for a commercial sex act, if the person is a minor or has been forced, defrauded, or coerced. Some—like lawyers in this sex trafficking complaint against Twitter—argue that something becomes a commercial sex act if it is transmitted on a platform that runs ads, even if no one was directly paid for the sex act or the images of it.

The new human trafficking bill doesn't directly change anything in this regard. But it could signal a vibe shift in sex trafficking law enforcement. It says the federal government will prioritize anti-trafficking grant money going to educational agencies that partner with law enforcement and tech companies to help "protect children from…human trafficking transmitted through technology" and groups that have demonstrated an ability to stop "trafficking transmitted through technology."

In a more sane world, that would simply mean more focus on stopping people who post illegal content. But if history is any indication, it will more likely mean going after tech platforms in a way that jeopardizes a wide variety of free speech related to sex.

Interestingly, the bill admonishes the Department of Justice for not following through on congressional orders to do more and better data collection. "It is the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice has failed to meet reporting requirements under title IV of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017…and that progress on critical data collection on human trafficking and crime reporting are in jeopardy as a result of such failure and must be addressed immediately," it states.

And yet the admonishment is an empty one. Congress keeps ordering various agencies to produce better data on human trafficking prevalence, and yet these data never seem to get published, if they're even collected. Meanwhile, Congress keeps throwing more money and mandates at collecting data and at raising awareness.

Raising awareness is the sort of initiative governments—and the nonprofits whom they give money to—love, since it doesn't require measurable results. Give people a load of propaganda about labor and sex trafficking and voila—awareness has been raised! Never mind if any exploitation or violence was actually prevented.

It's hard to get more than a vague breakdown of how money authorized is to be spent, but here are some basic parameters. The bill authorizes $16 million per year for Diplomatic and Consular Programs of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, $25 million per year for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out things like education grants, training for trafficking survivors, victim services, and public awareness initiatives (including $5 million per year for the National Human Trafficking Hotline and "for cybersecurity and public education campaigns"); $89.5 million per year for State Department initiatives; and $77 million per year for attorney general initiatives, "of which $35,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for the Office of Victims of Crime Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Human Trafficking."

Perhaps some good news is that the bill does not reauthorize trafficking act money for various FBI and Homeland Security programs—neither of which has the best track record with "trafficking investigations." But it's possible money for these programs has been appropriated through other legislation and programs.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Big Tech's Ban on Alex Jones Fans the Flames of His Conspiracy Theories

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Sex TraffickingHuman TraffickingCrimeLaw enforcementCriminal JusticeCongress
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (17)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. SuzanneRodanthe   3 years ago

    Great

    1. SuzanneRodanthe   3 years ago

      I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I’m equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
      extra cash on-line…. https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/

      1. WorkStar24   3 years ago

        I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. tgb. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-

        Reading this article:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

  2. mad.casual   3 years ago

    Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022

    Oh Jesus. Can we go back to thinking up the slogan and than formulating the bacronym to fit it?

    1. Super Scary   3 years ago

      The “FDTVPPRA” Act of 2022. They weren’t even trying, those lazy bums.

  3. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

    $1 Billion? Pikers. The givermint spends that in less than a day.

    1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

      DoD spends that every 14 hours or so.

  4. n00bdragon   3 years ago

    Five million dollars for a trafficking hotline? I really want to know. How many actual women/children get trafficked in an average year, and not this stupid “people who crossed a border illegally with someone else’s help” shit. I mean people who didn’t want to go and were forced/kidnapped/imprisoned/whatever. Would it be cheaper if we just cut anyone actually a victim of kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment a million dollar check and called it Even Steven?

    1. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      Would it me cheaper to NOT hand the DEA, FATF and GAFISUD billions of dollars to invade their countries, kidnap and jail their elected representatives and rob and murder people until they are subject to the same superstitious prohibition laws that made China communist and periodically wreck our own economy?

  5. Dillinger   3 years ago

    who gives vague expenditure money to a New Jersey congressman?

  6. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    That’s not a trafficking bill, it’s a billion dollar spending boondoggle in the face of inflation.
    Remember, remember the eighth of November.

  7. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

    Is the bill for or against human trafficking?

  8. Jerryskids   3 years ago

    A billion dollars for sex trafficking? I say if Congress wants to engage in sex trafficking they can damn well pay for it themselves.

    1. Ted   3 years ago

      Democrats love two things; spending taxpayers. and rape.

  9. Utkonos   3 years ago

    Sex Trafficking….. Red Light District…AH…NOW I get it!!!

  10. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

    So lemme see: sending bounty hunters to kidnap non-individual women into chattel slavery where Christian white men could use them and take away their children in 1848 was one thing.
    Sending bounty hunters to kidnap pregnant women into involuntary labor of reproduction where Christian men can jail them and take away their children in 2022 is quite another. Is this the difference the Thirteenth Amendment made?

    1. Ted   3 years ago

      Just fucking die you doddering old leftist bigot.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'

Jacob Sullum | 6.6.2025 2:50 PM

Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.

Billy Binion | 6.6.2025 1:51 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!