Federal carjacking law lowered to 'knowingly' taking a car—expanding criminal reach

What it does

This bill amends the federal carjacking statute to lower the mental-state threshold for basic carjacking from 'intent to cause death or serious bodily harm' to merely 'knowingly' taking a vehicle, while creating a new 25-year felony tier when carjacking involves intent to harm OR brandishing/discharging a firearm AND serious bodily injury results, and a death-penalty tier when death results from carjacking with intent to harm. The effect is to criminalize more carjacking conduct at lower mental states while increasing maximum sentences for the most serious variants.

Why we flagged it

The bill expands federal carjacking liability by lowering the mental-state threshold and increasing penalties for aggravated variants. It is a straightforward criminal-law amendment aimed at public safety, not a tax provision, appropriation, or regulatory carve-out.

What the text implies

• Lowering mens rea from 'intent to cause death or serious bodily harm' to 'knowingly' may capture vehicle takings where the defendant did not intend injury—e.g., a joyride or theft where force was used but harm was not the goal. This expands federal criminal exposure.
• The new 25-year tier requires either (i) intent to harm OR (ii) brandishing/discharging a firearm, AND serious bodily injury must result. This creates a gap: brandishing a firearm without injury does not trigger the 25-year penalty under the text as written, only the base offense.
• The death-penalty tier now requires 'intent to cause death or serious bodily harm' AND death results—a narrower trigger than the base offense, which only requires 'knowingly' taking the vehicle. This creates a potential inversion: a knowing carjacking without intent to harm cannot reach the death tier even if death occurs.

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

Who it affects

Carjacking victims and the public benefit from expanded federal enforcement against vehicle theft with force or threat, which is a genuine public-safety gain. However, lowering the mental-state threshold from intent-to-harm to mere knowledge creates a risk that defendants face federal felony liability for conduct that may not have involved intent to injure anyone—a potential overcriminalization concern that affects due process and proportionality, particularly for borderline cases.

Named in the bill

United States Code Title 18, Section 2119 (federal carjacking statute), Section 921 (firearm definition), Section 1365 (serious bodily injury definition), Section 2241, 2242 (maritime sexual assault statutes, cross-referenced for injury definition)

Where it stands

16 cosponsors: 11 Republicans, 5 Democrats.

• May 1, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• May 1, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
• Apr 30, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably”

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 3 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $699,111 in lobbying spend. A filing names 20 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.

Marsha Blackburn, the sponsor, reported $133,620 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Civil Liberties Union — $670,000 on 1 filing
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (nacdl) — $15,000 on 1 filing
• The Sentencing Project — $14,111 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.