The bill
Strong Sentences for Safer D.C. Streets Act of 2025
HR. 5172, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.
Sponsored by
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
ID: B001302
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 5172, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Justice" section, p. 587-589 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 279.
October 2, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Strong Sentences for Safer D.C. Streets Act of 2025 is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its primary objective is to increase mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes in the District of Columbia, under the guise of making streets safer. In reality, this bill is a cynical attempt to pander to voters' fears and ignorance about crime.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to increase mandatory minimum sentences for:
* First-degree murder: Life imprisonment without release (because 30 years wasn't enough) * Second-degree murder: Not less than 10 years or more than life (a nice, vague range) * Rape and first-degree sexual abuse: Mandatory minimums of 25-30 years (because victims' trauma can be quantified in years) * Kidnapping: Not less than 10 years or more than 30 years (arbitrary numbers are fun!) * Carjacking: Unarmed carjacking gets a minimum of 10 years, while armed carjacking gets 20 years (because guns make everything worse, apparently) * First-degree burglary: A minimum of 10 years (breaking and entering is bad, mmkay?)
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* Politicians seeking to appear tough on crime * Lobbyists representing law enforcement unions and private prison corporations * Voters who are easily swayed by emotional appeals and simplistic solutions * Actual victims of crime, who will likely see little tangible benefit from these changes
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of the "tough on crime" disease that plagues our legislative system. It's a symptom of a deeper illness: the inability to address root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and systemic inequality.
By increasing mandatory minimum sentences, this bill will:
* Further clog an already overburdened prison system * Waste taxpayer dollars on unnecessary incarceration costs * Fail to address the underlying social issues driving crime rates * Provide a false sense of security for voters, who will be convinced that "tougher" laws are the solution
In conclusion, this bill is a farcical attempt to appear tough on crime while ignoring the complexities of the issue. It's a cynical ploy to garner votes and campaign donations, rather than a genuine effort to create safer communities. As I always say, "Everyone lies." In this case, it's the politicians lying about their true intentions, and the voters lying to themselves about what really works.
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: D000032
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001077
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 55 nodes and 26 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $83,450
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 2 increases mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes, which could lead to an increase in incarceration rates and potentially benefit private prison operators, as seen in sections 2(a) through 2(f)
The bill's focus on increasing mandatory minimum sentences and enforcing stricter punishments may be seen as supporting law enforcement efforts, as implied in the bill's title and Section 2
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"HR 5172's focus on increasing mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes directly supports Project 2025's DOJ objective of using and expanding mandatory minimum tools to deter and incapacitate violent offenders and dismantle criminal enterprises."
— 554 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise attorneys are consistently using the tools at their disposal in cases with violent offenders, including pursuing mandatory minimum sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).43 The department should also support legislative efforts to provide further tools, such as the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, which Senators Tom Cotton (R–AR), Marsha Blackburn (R–TN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R–MS) introduced in 2021 in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions neutering the ACCA.44 l Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation.45 DISMANTLING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES Criminal organizations are as old as crime itself, but are more extensive, sophisticated, and dangerous today than at any other point in history. The Department of Justice has a key role in tackling transnational criminal orga- nizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mexican drug cartels as well as purely domestic criminal organizations like those built on the more traditional mafia crime model as part of its obligation to ensure the safety and security of the American people. The department’s primary directive under the next Administration should be to return to an unapologetic focus on dismantling these criminal organizations and incarcerating their membership. Once this reprioritization occurs, the depart- ment’s political leadership should take concrete steps to use agency reach and resources to prevent these criminal organizations from operating and surviving. Assaulting the business model of these criminal organizations—which are massive, diversified enterprises with nationwide or international operations—is essential for success. The next Administration will therefore need to: l Revitalize the DOJ’s use of the array of statutory tools that exist for dealing with the threat of criminal organizations. The most potent ones are the simplest. For example, the department should:
AI Analysis:
"HR 5172's proposal to raise mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenses directly supports the Project 2025 DOJ goal of employing and expanding mandatory minimum tools to deter and incapacitate violent criminals, aligning with its emphasis on tougher penalties for violent offenders."
— 554 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise attorneys are consistently using the tools at their disposal in cases with violent offenders, including pursuing mandatory minimum sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).43 The department should also support legislative efforts to provide further tools, such as the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, which Senators Tom Cotton (R–AR), Marsha Blackburn (R–TN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R–MS) introduced in 2021 in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions neutering the ACCA.44 l Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation.45 DISMANTLING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES Criminal organizations are as old as crime itself, but are more extensive, sophisticated, and dangerous today than at any other point in history. The Department of Justice has a key role in tackling transnational criminal orga- nizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mexican drug cartels as well as purely domestic criminal organizations like those built on the more traditional mafia crime model as part of its obligation to ensure the safety and security of the American people. The department’s primary directive under the next Administration should be to return to an unapologetic focus on dismantling these criminal organizations and incarcerating their membership. Once this reprioritization occurs, the depart- ment’s political leadership should take concrete steps to use agency reach and resources to prevent these criminal organizations from operating and surviving. Assaulting the business model of these criminal organizations—which are massive, diversified enterprises with nationwide or international operations—is essential for success. The next Administration will therefore need to: l Revitalize the DOJ’s use of the array of statutory tools that exist for dealing with the threat of criminal organizations. The most potent ones are the simplest. For example, the department should: — 555 — Department of Justice 1. Rigorously prosecute as much interstate drug activity as possible, including simple possession of distributable quantities.46 Recent efforts to create the impression that drug possession crimes are not serious offenses has contributed to the explosion of criminal organization activities in the United States. 2. Aggressively deploy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),47 which Congress expressly created to empower the Department of Justice to treat patterns of intrastate- level crimes, such as robbery, extortion, and murder, as federal criminal conduct for criminal organizations and networks. The next Administration can use existing tools while it works with Congress to develop new tools. l Secure the border,48 which is the key entry point for many criminal organizations and their supplies, products, and employees. Mexico— which is arguably functioning as a failed state run by drug cartels—is the main point of transit for illegal drugs produced in Central and South America, fentanyl precursors from the Chinese Communist Party–led People’s Republic of China,49 weapons, human smuggling and trafficking, and other contraband. Mexican drug cartels, including the dominant Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), are the main drivers of fentanyl production and distribution in the United States. The southwestern land border is sufficiently porous that Mexican drug cartels have operational control of large sections of the border, which facilitates easy movement of product and personnel. These cartels are also violent and not afraid to demonstrate force on both sides of the border. Their conduct represents a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens. In addition to finalizing the southwestern land border wall, the next Administration should take a creative and aggressive approach to tackling these dangerous criminal organizations at the border. This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been done. A new and forceful approach to interdiction will have a ripple effect on the operations of these criminal organizations, which currently operate freely without concern for criminal prosecution, and will lay the necessary groundwork for initial prosecutions of these organizations and their leaders. It is critical that the federal government staunch the flow of drugs by preventing the far-too-easy access to the United States that now exists.
AI Analysis:
"HR 5172 aligns strongly with Project 2025's DOJ policy by increasing mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes, supporting the goal of enhancing federal focus on violent crime reduction and ensuring appropriate penalties for offenders, particularly in jurisdictions like D.C. where local enforcement may be perceived as deficient."
— 552 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Director of the FBI must remain politically accountable to the President in the same manner as the head of any other federal department or agency. To ensure prompt political accountability and to rein in perceived or actual abuses, the next conservative Administration should seek a legislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of the heads of all other major departments and agencies. RENEWING THE DEPARTMENT’S FOCUS ON VIOLENT CRIME Despite the DOJ’s pronouncements that violent crime continues to be a top pri- ority, it has increased across the United States. The department’s leadership must make actually reducing violent crime a priority across the United States—and it must do so in partnership with state and local officials in a manner that is tailored to the needs and conditions in those states and localities. Targeting Violent and Career Criminals, Not Parents. The next conserva- tive Administration must ensure that the Department of Justice devotes significant effort to reducing violent crime nationwide. The Attorney General should require all U.S. Attorneys to develop a jurisdictional-specific plan—whenever possible in coordination with state and local law enforcement—to reduce violent crime within each of their districts. Then the Attorney General should hold each U.S. Attorney accountable for achieving actual results. In recent years, federal and state officials have succumbed to calls from anti–law enforcement advocates for so-called criminal justice reform. The pleas- ant-sounding terminology of reform masks the darker reality of this movement, which is one that has supported dismantling effective federal, state, and local law enforcement and stripped away some of the most fundamental tools that law enforcement has long had at its disposal. This campaign is not just ill-advised; it has clearly had real-world consequences in the form of catastrophic increases in crime—particularly violent crime—nationwide. As discussed in the next section, the Department of Justice has a special obligation to restore law and order in such districts.37 Juxtaposed against this increase in violent crime are things like Attorney Gen- eral Merrick Garland’s October 4, 2021, memorandum directing the commitment of significant resources and energies to combating imaginary, politically conve- nient threats of violence toward members of school boards and their staffs during the heat of the Virginia gubernatorial race.38 There was no similar effort to inves- tigate elected officials and other public officers who conspired with outside allies to target and harass parents who were merely exercising their constitutional and statutory rights.39 If we are to continue to have informed and civil dialogue in the United States on issues of public concern, the DOJ must enforce applicable civil rights laws in an even-handed way when citizens’ livelihoods are threatened merely because they have exercised their rights. — 553 — Department of Justice Enhancing the Federal Focus on and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies. A disturbing number of state and local jurisdictions have enacted policies that directly undermine public safety, leave doubt about whether criminals will be punished, and weaken the rule of law. While the prose- cution of criminal offenses in most jurisdictions across the country must remain the responsibility of state and local governments, the federal government owes a special responsibility to Americans in jurisdictions where state and local prose- cutors have abdicated this duty.40 Jurisdictions suffering from deficiencies in the rule of law warrant, as appropri- ate within our federal system, greater attention and additional federal resources that are sufficient to protect the rights of American citizens and federal interests. In the next conservative Administration, the DOJ, acting primarily through its U.S. Attorneys, should therefore: l Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade responsibility for their conduct.41 The department should also increase the federal law enforcement presence in such jurisdictions and explore innovative solutions to bring meaningful charges against criminals and criminal organizations in such jurisdictions. l Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status). l Pursue policies and legislation that encourage prosecution of violent crimes as well as appropriate sentences for such offenses. The Biden Administration has adopted policies that do not prevent armed career criminals, who actually commit violent crimes, from committing those crimes. A recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report shows that armed career criminals are consistently sentenced below their minimum sentencing guidelines range.42 There are valid reasons for sentence reductions in particular cases (for example, if the defendant has provided substantial assistance in prosecuting other offenders). At the same time, the DOJ must ensure that its line
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.