Summary#
STOP Act 2.0 is an introduced bill, not law. It would amend the federal mail-fraud law, the Trade Act of 2002, and the STOP Act of 2018; its stated goal is to address fraud involving false origin information and improve information about international mail shipments. It would not create a new agency.
- A person who commits or conspires to commit mail fraud and knowingly misstates a shipment’s country of origin in required information could face an additional fine, up to five years in prison, or both. The bill would also apply existing Department of Homeland Security seizure and forfeiture authority to those shipments.
- The authority to exclude countries from the requirement for advance electronic information on 100 percent of international mail shipments would end five years after the bill’s enactment. The bill does not end exclusions immediately.
- The Homeland Security secretary would have to submit annual compliance reports to Congress. They would cover agreements and discussions with foreign postal operators, compliance and data quality, searches and their results, tests comparing USPS and private-carrier packages, excluded countries, relevant Universal Postal Union policies, and detection technology. The unclassified report may be posted on the USPS website.
- Homeland Security, the attorney general, and the postmaster general may form partnerships with private parcel or technology companies to develop detection technology and processes. Homeland Security, consulting with the State Department, may share specified information with allied foreign governments, subject to existing law and contracts.
- The CBP commissioner would have to train Customs and Border Protection officers to detect illicit drugs and precursors. The comptroller general would have to report to Congress within one year on the 2018 STOP Act’s implementation, risks, carrier compliance differences, and use of country exclusions.
What it means for you#
- People and businesses sending or receiving mail: The bill does not create a general new rule for ordinary mailers. Its added criminal penalty applies only when the specified mail-fraud or conspiracy offense is committed, and the person knowingly misrepresents a shipment’s country of origin in required information.
- People or businesses involved in covered shipments: Those shipments could be subject to seizure and forfeiture under the specified existing DHS authority. The bill does not set out a separate seizure process.
- Private parcel and technology companies: They may take part in a government partnership, but the bill does not require them to join.
- Foreign postal operators and governments: The bill does not directly require them to provide information or join agreements. It requires reports about agreements and discussions, and allows certain information-sharing with allied governments.
- Federal agencies: DHS must report annually; CBP must train officers; and the comptroller general must produce a one-time evaluation. These are government duties, not a new front-line service for the public.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires reports, officer training, and an evaluation, but gives no cost or staffing estimates.
- It does not specify new appropriations, fees, or a new grant or benefit program.
- It adds possible criminal fines and extends seizure and forfeiture authority, but the material gives no revenue estimate.
What is unclear#
- The parent laws are not supplied, so I could not verify the current requirements, existing penalties, reporting rules, or how the exclusion authority currently works.
- The bill does not define “country of origin” or explain how that term applies to a shipment.
- It does not specify how the new training, partnerships, or information-sharing would work, or how much they would be used.
- It does not set out how seizure and forfeiture would be carried out for these shipments.
- It does not explain what happens to countries that cannot meet the 100-percent information requirement when the exclusion authority ends.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make false origin information in covered mail-fraud cases more costly and to allow seizure and forfeiture of related shipments.
- A possible argument for the reporting requirements is that Congress would receive regular information on missing or inaccurate data, searches, and detected illicit goods.
- Comparing USPS and private-carrier packages could help identify differences in compliance and risks.
- Training, possible technology partnerships, and permitted information-sharing could give agencies more tools to detect illicit substances.
Case against#
- The added prison term and seizure authority are serious consequences; the bill does not explain how “country of origin” would be determined.
- Ending the exclusion authority after five years sets a fixed deadline even though some countries may not be ready to meet the information requirement. The bill calls for reporting on preparations but does not provide another extension.
- The bill does not specify funding, oversight, or operating rules for partnerships, training, and information-sharing.
- The annual reports and evaluation may provide information, but the bill does not require agencies to meet a particular compliance rate or ensure that reported problems are fixed.