SB 1663, the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2025, would make it unlawful to provide, advertise, or knowingly facilitate paid conversion therapy aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill defines conversion therapy broadly as any practice or treatment that seeks to change sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or same-sex attraction, when offered for compensation or through compensated integral services. It expressly excludes supportive counseling, identity exploration, assistance with gender transition, and sexual-orientation-neutral interventions that do not seek to change a person’s orientation or identity.
The bill also includes congressional findings stating that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender nonconforming is not a disorder and that conversion therapy lacks scientific support and can cause serious harm, including depression, self-harm, family rejection, and suicide. It frames the practice as fraudulent and harmful when offered for profit. The legislation would create a federal prohibition focused on commercial conduct rather than private beliefs or noncommercial speech.
In terms of enforcement, the bill assigns primary authority to the Federal Trade Commission, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act. The Attorney General of the United States could also bring civil actions, and state attorneys general or other authorized state officials could sue in federal court on behalf of residents, subject to notice and coordination rules with the FTC. The bill also allows the FTC to intervene in state actions and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if any part is struck down.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of banning conversion therapy, with the sponsors and findings emphasizing consumer protection, public health, and fraud prevention. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call outcome to indicate broader legislative support or opposition at this stage. The bill was introduced and referred to committee, suggesting it is still in the early stages of the legislative process.
The main points of contention likely center on federal authority, First Amendment concerns, and the scope of the definition of conversion therapy, especially where counseling, speech, or services intersect with gender identity and sexual orientation. The bill anticipates some of these issues by excluding certain supportive or transition-related services and by carving out products or services protected by the First Amendment. Potential opponents may argue that the measure regulates speech or counseling practices too broadly, while supporters would likely view it as a targeted consumer-protection and anti-fraud measure.
If enacted, the bill would add a federal prohibition on commercial conversion therapy and related advertising or facilitation, creating new liability under the FTC Act framework. It would affect therapists, counselors, clinics, and other entities that offer paid services intended to change sexual orientation or gender identity, while preserving non-coercive supportive counseling and transition-related assistance. The bill would also expand enforcement options for federal and state authorities and could preempt or supplement some state consumer-protection or unfair-practice actions in this area.
The bill’s tone and findings are uniformly supportive of banning conversion therapy, reflecting a strong pro-LGBTQ+ and consumer-protection stance. Because no committee hearing transcript or vote data is included, there is no documented legislative opposition or bipartisan negotiation in the provided materials. The available context suggests the measure was introduced by a large group of Senate Democrats and referred to committee without further recorded action.
Likely areas of contention include whether Congress has authority to regulate this conduct through the FTC, whether the bill impermissibly regulates speech or counseling, and whether the definition of conversion therapy is broad enough to capture legitimate therapeutic practices. Supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s fraud-prevention and public-health rationale, while critics may focus on First Amendment protections, professional autonomy, and the line between prohibited conversion efforts and permitted counseling or gender-transition support. The bill’s explicit First Amendment carveout and exclusions for supportive services appear designed to address some of these concerns.