The "Targeting Child Predators Act of 2025" enhances law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute child predators by strengthening nondisclosure requirements for administrative subpoenas and establishing a judicial review process for these requirements.
John Kennedy
Senator
LA
The "Targeting Child Predators Act of 2025" enhances law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute child predators by modifying the rules around administrative subpoenas. It extends nondisclosure requirements for certain subpoenas issued by the Department of Homeland Security to protect victims and investigations, while also establishing a process for judicial review of these nondisclosure requirements to ensure transparency and protect the rights of subpoena recipients. This judicial review process allows recipients to challenge nondisclosure requirements, balancing the need for secrecy in investigations with the principles of due process. The bill aims to prevent child predators from evading justice by ensuring investigations are not compromised through premature disclosure of subpoenas.
Homeland Security Gains Power for 180-Day Gag Orders on Subpoenas Under New Child Predator Bill
The Targeting Child Predators Act of 2025 proposes significant changes to how administrative subpoenas are handled, particularly concerning nondisclosure requirements. This bill amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to grant the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority, previously held by the Treasury Secretary in this specific context, to issue administrative subpoenas and impose gag orders preventing recipients from discussing them for up to 180 days under certain conditions, potentially without prior court approval as previously required in some instances under section 3486(a)(5).
Shifting Power and Secrecy Rules
So, what's actually changing on the ground? Section 2 of the bill empowers DHS officials investigating cases (ostensibly related to child predators, given the bill's title, though the text applies to subpoenas issued under 18 U.S.C. § 3486) to slap a 180-day nondisclosure order—a gag order—onto an administrative subpoena recipient. This can happen if the official certifies that revealing the subpoena could endanger someone, lead to flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or otherwise "seriously jeopardize an investigation." Notably, the bill removes a previous requirement for a court order for this initial nondisclosure under paragraph (5). While recipients can disclose the subpoena to comply or seek legal advice, anyone they tell is also bound by secrecy. The bill allows officials to request the identities of those informed and permits extensions beyond the initial 180 days.
Challenging the Gag Order: The Ball's in Your Court
Okay, so you get a subpoena with a gag order. What can you do? Section 3 introduces a new process (18 U.S.C. § 3486A) for judicial review, but the onus is on the recipient to kick things off. If you want to challenge the nondisclosure, you have to notify the government or file a petition. The government then has 30 days to apply for a court order formally prohibiting disclosure. The standard for the court? It must issue the order if it finds disclosure may lead to one of the harms certified by the official. Think about that: if you run a small tech company or manage records for a local business and receive one of these, challenging the secrecy means proactively engaging in a legal process where hearings and records are kept under seal, potentially incurring legal costs, all while the gag order remains in effect during the proceedings.
The Balancing Act: Protecting Investigations vs. Transparency
While the stated aim is to target child predators by preventing suspects from being tipped off, the mechanics raise questions about balance. Expanding DHS's power to impose secrecy, lowering the bar by removing an initial court order requirement in certain cases, and using broad justifications like "seriously jeopardize an investigation" could open doors beyond the bill's title focus. The burden placed on recipients to initiate challenges, combined with sealed court proceedings, potentially limits transparency and oversight. This shifts the dynamic, placing significant power in the hands of the issuing official and potentially impacting individuals or businesses caught in the middle who may have limited resources to push back against secrecy requirements.