Sloth Imports Ban Proposed with Exceptions

Summary#

The SLOTHS Act of 2026 would create a new federal law. It would generally prohibit importing sloths, with limited exceptions; its stated goal, reflected in its title, is to stop trafficking and harm to sloths. The bill was introduced and referred to House committees; it is not law.

  • The ban would cover every species in the sloth suborder Folivora and apply to any person.
  • The Interior Secretary could allow imports of dead sloths or parts for research if the importer provides documentation the Secretary finds satisfactory.
  • A sloth could also be imported to a facility accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) for a breeding program, if the importer documents that it was not taken from the wild after the law takes effect.
  • Violations could bring civil penalties, criminal fines, loss of certain federal authorizations, and forfeiture of the sloth. A person convicted or assessed a civil penalty would also owe related costs to store and care for a seized sloth.

What it means for you#

  • People and businesses importing sloths: You could not import a sloth unless an exception applies. The research exception covers dead sloths or parts; the breeding-program exception requires an AZA-accredited facility and documentation about when the sloth was taken from the wild.
  • Researchers: Importing a dead sloth or part for research would require documentation acceptable to the Interior Secretary. The bill does not create a right to approval.
  • AZA-accredited facilities: You could receive a sloth for a breeding program only if the importer meets the documentation condition. The bill does not require these facilities to accept sloths.
  • Holders of certain federal authorizations: If found to have violated the law, you would lose any Interior Department authorization you hold that allows importing or exporting fish, wildlife, or plants, or operating a quarantine station or rescue center for imported fish, wildlife, or plants.
  • General public: The bill restricts imports; it does not expressly ban domestic ownership or sale of sloths.
  • People accused of violations: A civil penalty could be imposed only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. A knowing violation could bring a criminal fine of up to $100,000. Each violation counts separately. An illegally imported sloth could be forfeited to the United States.

Money#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill gives no estimate of government costs for enforcement, hearings, seizures, or animal care.
  • A civil penalty could be up to $20,000 per violation; a criminal fine could be up to $100,000 per knowing violation.
  • A person convicted or assessed a civil penalty would be liable for storage, care, and maintenance costs for a sloth seized in connection with the violation.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set a timeline or detailed process for deciding whether research or breeding-program documentation is satisfactory to the Secretary.
  • It does not explain who decides that a person has “been found” to have violated the law for purposes of cancelling federal authorizations.
  • It does not explain how the ban would interact with existing import rules. The supplied material does not establish what current law already requires.
  • The bill does not specify how seized sloths would be cared for or where they would go.
  • It does not set a start date beyond tying one exception to the date the law takes effect.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to stop sloth imports that may be linked to trafficking or harm.
  • A broad ban could restrict imports across all sloth species, while retaining exceptions for research and AZA-accredited breeding programs.
  • Requiring documentation could help the Secretary check whether an import fits an exception.
  • Forfeiture and penalties could give the ban consequences beyond simply refusing entry.

Case against#

  • The ban covers all sloth species, and the exceptions are limited. This could prevent imports for purposes other than research or breeding at an AZA-accredited facility.
  • The bill leaves the documentation standard to the Secretary’s satisfaction without spelling out how decisions would be made or reviewed.
  • The bill requires cancellation of certain federal authorizations after a person is found to have violated it, but does not explain that finding process.
  • Seizure, forfeiture, animal care, and enforcement could require public resources; the bill provides no cost estimate.