HB6170, the “Adoption Deserves Oversight, Protection, and Transparency Act of 2025” or “ADOPT Act of 2025,” would create a new federal criminal offense for certain “unlawful adoption practices” in private domestic interstate adoptions. The bill targets three main categories of conduct: providing adoption intermediary services for compensation without falling within specified licensed or authorized exceptions; placing adoption advertisements outside of authorized entities; and making unauthorized payments or providing things of value to or on behalf of a placing parent above $2,500 before the parent has consulted with a licensed child-placing agency or a licensed attorney. It also defines key terms such as adoption advertising, adoption intermediary services, placing parent, and licensed or public child-placing agencies.
The bill would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section, 18 U.S.C. § 228A, and would update the chapter title and tables of contents to reflect the new offense. It sets criminal penalties of up to five years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine for individuals, and a $100,000 fine per violation for organizations. The bill applies where interstate commerce is involved, including travel, communications, or payments using interstate channels, and it takes effect 120 days after enactment.
The bill’s stated purpose is to protect birth parents, adoptive parents, and children from exploitation by unlicensed adoption intermediaries, ensure access to licensed and regulated adoption providers, and prevent the commodification of children in private domestic interstate adoptions. It expressly preserves the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act and does not limit intercountry adoption programs authorized under federal law. It also allows states and local governments to impose stricter requirements than the federal baseline.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be in an early stage and has only been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no committee transcript, recorded vote, or amendment history provided. As a result, there is no documented floor debate or vote-based sentiment to assess. The available context suggests the measure is framed as a child-protection and anti-exploitation bill, but the absence of discussion means any broader political support or opposition is not yet evident.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the scope of federal criminalization in adoption practice, the $2,500 payment threshold, and whether the bill could affect private adoption facilitation, advertising, or support payments in ways that are too restrictive. The exceptions for licensed agencies, licensed attorneys, certain nonprofits, and intercountry adoption providers appear designed to narrow the reach of the offense, while the rule allowing stricter state laws may appeal to supporters of stronger oversight. Opponents, if any emerge, may argue that the bill could chill lawful adoption assistance or create uncertainty for families navigating private adoptions.
The bill would add a new federal criminal statute to title 18 covering unlawful adoption practices and would amend the chapter heading and tables of contents for chapter 11A. It would create federal penalties for unlicensed adoption intermediary services, unauthorized adoption advertising, and certain payments to or on behalf of a placing parent in connection with a private domestic interstate adoption, while carving out conduct by licensed agencies, licensed attorneys, certain nonprofits, and approved intercountry adoption providers. The bill would not alter the Indian Child Welfare Act or federal intercountry adoption law, and it would allow states to impose stricter adoption-related requirements.
The bill’s stated framing is strongly protective and reform-oriented, emphasizing oversight, transparency, and prevention of exploitation in adoption. With no committee transcript or vote record available, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the legislative history provided. The available context suggests a generally favorable policy rationale, but actual sentiment among lawmakers cannot be measured from the record supplied.
The main likely areas of contention are the breadth of federal criminal liability, the definition of adoption intermediary services, and the restriction on payments above $2,500 before consultation with a licensed agency or attorney. Supporters are likely to view these provisions as necessary to curb coercive or profit-driven adoption practices and protect vulnerable parents and children. Critics may argue that the bill could overregulate private adoption arrangements, burden lawful advertising and assistance, or create unintended barriers for families seeking adoption services.