Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Spea…
This bill (Stop COYOTES Act) amends federal criminal law to (1) add a new offense provision that increases punishment for specified felony offenses involving minors when committed near schools, school activities, playgrounds, youth centers, public parks, pools, video arcades, or public housing — adding up to 10 years of imprisonment consecutive to the underlying sentence; (2) raise statutory monetary penalty thresholds in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) for certain controlled-substance violations (framing the changes as aimed at fentanyl-related offenses); and (3) require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure ICE and CBP share certain collected information with one another and with state and local law enforcement within 100 miles of a land border, and to report that information to Congress every 180 days. The new child-offense enhancement defines minor as an individual under age 18 and specifies distance-based zones (1,000 feet and 100 feet) for the added penalty.
Sentencing approach: liberals worry expanded penalties increase incarceration and disparate impacts; conservatives emphasize deterrence and punishment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete substantive amendments (criminal sentence enhancements and statutory changes) and a recurring federal reporting requirement, but provides only partial operational detail and omits fiscal and safeguards necessary to fully operationalize the administrative components.
This bill (Stop COYOTES Act) amends federal criminal law to (1) add a new offense provision that increases punishment for specified felony offenses involving minors when committed near schools, school activities, playgrounds, youth centers, public parks, pools, video arcades, or public housing — adding up to 10 years of imprisonment consecutive to the underlying sentence; (2) raise statutory monetary penalty thresholds in 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1) for certain controlled-substance violations (framing the changes as aimed at fentanyl-related offenses); and (3) require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure ICE and CBP share certain collected information with one another and with state and local law enforcement within 100 miles of a land border, and to report that information to Congress every 180 days.
The new child-offense enhancement defines minor as an individual under age 18 and specifies distance-based zones (1,000 feet and 100 feet) for the added penalty.
The information to be shared and reported covers unlawful entry along the southern border, severe forms of trafficking in persons (including sex trafficking), smuggling of aliens, kidnapping of aliens for smuggling, abuse/assault of aliens by traffickers, smuggling of controlled substances and firearms, and the involvement of gangs or transnational criminal organizations.
On content alone, the bill mixes broadly popular goals (protecting children) with more divisive provisions (drug‑penalty restructures and border enforcement/data sharing). The lack of compromise features, potential fiscal and civil‑liberties concerns, and multi‑committee jurisdiction reduce its chance of surviving Senate hurdles and detailed review. The child‑protection enhancement could be incorporated into other package legislation more easily than the bill passing intact.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete substantive amendments (criminal sentence enhancements and statutory changes) and a recurring federal reporting requirement, but provides only partial operational detail and omits fiscal and safeguards necessary to fully operationalize the administrative components.
Sentencing approach: liberals worry expanded penalties increase incarceration and disparate impacts; conservatives emphasize deterrence and punishment.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Sentencing approach: liberals worry expanded penalties increase incarceration and disparate impacts; conservatives emphasize deterrence and punishment.
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would likely welcome the bill’s stated aims to protect children and to combat fentanyl and trafficking, but would be concerned about expanded criminal penalties, increased federal enforcement and information-sharing with immigration agencies.
They would likely worry that sentencing enhancements could deepen mass incarceration and disproportionately affect communities of color and immigrant communities, and that stronger criminal approaches to fentanyl may crowd out public-health strategies.
The mandatory nature, breadth, and practical application of the new information-sharing regime (particularly cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE/CBP) would raise civil‑liberties and due-process concerns.
A centrist/moderate view will generally favor stronger tools to protect children and to disrupt fentanyl and trafficking networks, while flagging potential tradeoffs around civil liberties, federal-local relations, and fiscal or implementation details.
Centrists will look for clear evidence the measures will improve safety without producing large unintended costs (e.g., prison population growth, strained local-federal relations).
They will appreciate the reporting requirement to Congress as a mechanism for oversight but want clarity on how information sharing will respect state law and privacy safeguards.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as strengthening penalties for crimes against children and for fentanyl trafficking, and for improving federal coordination and local partnership in border-related enforcement.
The conservative perspective will emphasize law-and-order, the need to deter smugglers and traffickers, and the value of sharing intelligence between federal and local agencies.
They may still expect clarity on implementation (e.g., ensuring information sharing is operational and that penalties are enforceable) but will broadly support the tougher penalties and reporting requirements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill mixes broadly popular goals (protecting children) with more divisive provisions (drug‑penalty restructures and border enforcement/data sharing). The lack of compromise features, potential fiscal and civil‑liberties concerns, and multi‑committee jurisdiction reduce its chance of surviving Senate hurdles and detailed review. The child‑protection enhancement could be incorporated into other package legislation more easily than the bill passing intact.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Sentencing approach: liberals worry expanded penalties increase incarceration and disparate impacts; conservatives emphasize deterrence and…
On content alone, the bill mixes broadly popular goals (protecting children) with more divisive provisions (drug‑penalty restructures and b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete substantive amendments (criminal sentence enhancements and statutory changes) and a recurring federal reporting requirement, but provides only pa…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.