Federal prosecutors must now prove defendants knew what they were doing

What it does

This bill establishes a federal default rule: when a criminal statute does not explicitly specify what mental state (intent, knowledge, recklessness, etc.) the government must prove, prosecutors must prove the defendant acted 'knowingly' — meaning the defendant was aware of the conduct and its circumstances. The bill defines 'knowingly,' 'willfully,' and related terms precisely, and applies retroactively to past crimes unless doing so would punish innocent conduct, increase punishment, or deprive defendants of existing defenses.

Why we flagged it

The bill is a structural criminal-law amendment that raises the default mental-state requirement for federal crimes and defines key culpability terms. It is fundamentally about due-process protection and prosecutorial burden, not about any specific crime or industry.

What the text implies

• Retroactive application to pre-enactment crimes may create litigation over whether prior convictions violated the new standard, potentially opening collateral-review pathways for defendants convicted under lower mental-state standards.
• The 'knowingly' default may narrow prosecutorial discretion in regulatory and environmental crimes where statutes are silent on mens rea, potentially reducing convictions for strict-liability or negligence-based offenses.
• The exception for jurisdiction and venue elements preserves prosecutors' ability to charge without proving mental state for those elements, maintaining a prosecutorial advantage in establishing court authority.
• The bill's requirement that subsequent laws 'specifically refer to this section' to override it creates a high bar for Congress to modify the default, potentially locking in this standard against future legislative change.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill raises the baseline mental-state requirement for federal crimes, making it harder for prosecutors to convict defendants without proving awareness or intent. This protects ordinary people from criminal liability for unknowing or reckless conduct and strengthens due-process protections. However, the retroactive application and exceptions create some uncertainty about scope.

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal courts, Congress, Title 18 USC (federal criminal code)

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.

• Jan 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• Jun 10, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jun 10, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 13”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $245,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 13 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Andy Biggs, the sponsor, reported $9,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Prison Fellowship Ministries — $170,000 on 2 filings
• Prison Fellowship Ministries — $60,000 on 2 filings
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (nacdl) — $15,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 16, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.