HR-8040-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Sheri Biggs (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would amend two federal statutes — 18 U.S.C. §2339A (providing material support to terrorists) and 18 U.S.C. §2339B (providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations) — to increase criminal penalties. For both offenses, it would replace the current sentencing ceiling (15 years for §2339A, 20 years for §2339B) with a mandatory minimum of 20 years, a maximum of life imprisonment, and an option for the death penalty. It would eliminate judicial discretion to impose sentences below 20 years for either offense.
Who benefits
Victims of terrorism and their families, who may view harsher penalties as justice and deterrence. Federal prosecutors, who would gain stronger plea-bargaining leverage. Communities and the general public who support maximum deterrence of terrorism financing. National security agencies, whose investigative work would carry greater legal consequences for suspects.
Who is hurt
Defendants convicted under §2339A or §2339B who would face a mandatory 20-year minimum regardless of the degree of their involvement — including peripheral or low-level participants. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates who argue mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion. Individuals who may unknowingly provide support to organizations later designated as terrorist groups (e.g., through charitable donations). Families of defendants who would face longer separations. Federal public defenders, who would face more complex capital cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that terrorism is among the gravest threats to national security and that current penalties — a 15-year cap for material support to terrorists — are insufficient to deter individuals from financing or aiding attacks that can kill hundreds. They contend that mandatory minimums send an unambiguous message that any material support for terrorism will result in severe consequences, and point to cases where defendants received relatively short sentences despite facilitating deadly plots, arguing that judicial discretion has produced inconsistent outcomes that undermine deterrence.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory minimums eliminate a judge's ability to distinguish between a financier who knowingly funds a mass casualty attack and a low-level participant who may have been deceived or coerced — treating vastly different levels of culpability identically. They contend that the Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle, as applied in cases like Timbs v. Indiana (2019), raises concerns when severe mandatory sentences are applied to defendants with minimal involvement, and that research on mandatory minimums in other contexts has not demonstrated a consistent deterrent effect on serious crime.