Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill ("Stopping High-level Record Elimination and Destruction Act of 2025" or "SHRED Act of 2025") amends 18 U.S.C. 2071 to add a new subsection imposing enhanced criminal penalties for officers or employees of the Department of Justice or any intelligence community agency who commit offenses under that section (concealment, removal, or mutilation of Government records). The new penalty in the bill is imprisonment of not less than 20 years or for life, and/or fines.
Progressives support accountability but objects to draconian mandatory minimums
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and precise statutory amendment that accomplishes a narrow substantive change—raising criminal penalties for certain government officers and employees under 18 U.S.C. §2071—but provides limited supplementary detail on fiscal effects, sentencing integration, edge cases, and accountability mechanisms.
The bill ("Stopping High-level Record Elimination and Destruction Act of 2025" or "SHRED Act of 2025") amends 18 U.S.C. 2071 to add a new subsection imposing enhanced criminal penalties for officers or employees of the Department of Justice or any intelligence community agency who commit offenses under that section (concealment, removal, or mutilation of Government records).
The new penalty in the bill is imprisonment of not less than 20 years or for life, and/or fines.
The amendment cites the intelligence community definition at 50 U.S.C. 3003(4).
Narrow but politically charged and punitive; low administrative complexity but weak bipartisan compromise and significant legal/political hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and precise statutory amendment that accomplishes a narrow substantive change—raising criminal penalties for certain government officers and employees under 18 U.S.C. §2071—but provides limited supplementary detail on fiscal effects, sentencing integration, edge cases, and accountability mechanisms.
Progressives support accountability but objects to draconian mandatory minimums
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives support accountability but objects to draconian mandatory minimums
Supports stronger accountability for officials who destroy or conceal government records, because records preservation protects oversight and civil rights.
However, would be concerned the mandatory 20-year-to-life penalty is excessively harsh and that singling out DOJ and intelligence agencies could politicize enforcement.
Views the bill as advancing accountability for serious wrongdoing while also raising concerns about proportionality and legal clarity.
Seeks clearer definitions, mens rea standards, and scaled penalties to avoid unintended consequences or overcriminalization.
Likely welcomes tough penalties aimed at DOJ and intelligence employees, viewing the measure as a necessary check on perceived misconduct and concealment.
Favors strong deterrence against politically motivated document destruction and enhanced accountability for federal actors.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but politically charged and punitive; low administrative complexity but weak bipartisan compromise and significant legal/political hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives support accountability but objects to draconian mandatory minimums
Narrow but politically charged and punitive; low administrative complexity but weak bipartisan compromise and significant legal/political h…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and precise statutory amendment that accomplishes a narrow substantive change—raising criminal penalties for certain government officers and employees un…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.