California Assembly Democrats have reversed course on a bill that would impose felony charges for adults soliciting minors for sex, following public pressure and criticism from Governor Gavin Newsom and Republicans.
At a Glance
- Assembly Democrats now support AB 379, allowing felony charges against adults who solicit minors aged 16-17 for sex if the adult is at least three years older
- The bill creates a grant program for human trafficking prosecutions and a survivor support fund
- Governor Newsom had criticized lawmakers’ initial opposition to the felony provisions
- The support fund will be partially funded by increased fines on businesses involved in trafficking
- Republicans had launched an ad campaign criticizing Democrats for initially weakening the bill
Democrats Reverse Position on Minor Protection Bill
California Assembly Democrats have changed their position on legislation aimed at protecting minors from sexual solicitation. After initially removing provisions that would increase penalties for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds, Democrats have now agreed to support AB 379 with those tougher measures reinstated. The bill allows adults who are at least three years older than a minor to be charged with a felony for soliciting sex from teenagers aged 16 or 17, bringing protections for older teens in line with those already in place for children under 16.
The legislation, authored by Assembly member Maggy Krell, specifically targets predators who solicit minors for commercial sex. Current California law already allows soliciting a minor under 16 to be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony on first offense, and as a felony for subsequent offenses. The new bill would extend similar punishments to those who target 16- and 17-year-olds, closing what many see as a dangerous loophole in existing protections for minors.
— AdriFluye (@AdrielAviles) April 30, 2025
Age Gap Provision and Additional Support Measures
Under the newly revised bill, offenders who are within three years of age of the minor would still face misdemeanor charges rather than felonies. This age-gap provision was included as part of the compromise reached by Assembly Democrats. The legislation goes beyond just increasing penalties, as it also establishes a state grant program to aid prosecution in human and sex trafficking cases. This additional funding aims to strengthen law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute trafficking networks operating throughout California.
“I’m looking at this from a prosecutor’s standpoint — this bill strengthens California law and gives us the felony hammer to prosecute the creeps that are preying on teenagers,” said Assembly member Maggy Krell
Another key component of AB 379 is the creation of a support fund for survivors of trafficking. This fund will be partially financed through increased fines imposed on businesses that are found to be involved in human trafficking operations. By targeting the financial interests of businesses that facilitate trafficking, the legislation aims to attack the economic incentives behind exploitation while providing resources for those who have been victimized.
Political Pressure Leads to Policy Shift
The Democratic lawmakers’ reversal comes after significant political pressure from multiple fronts. Governor Gavin Newsom had publicly criticized the initial weakening of the bill, taking a firm stance on the need for stronger penalties against those who prey on minors. Republican lawmakers had also seized on the issue, launching an ad campaign targeting Democrats who had initially opposed the tougher felony provisions in the legislation.
“The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim’s age. Full stop,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, said.
Republican Minority Leader James Gallagher had been particularly vocal in his criticism, stating: “That’s how these folks voted, you know? They abandoned 16- or 17-year olds.” The political pressure appears to have been effective, as Assembly Democrats reconsidered their position and ultimately agreed to support the bill with its stronger protective measures intact. The amended bill is still under consideration in the Assembly and will need to complete the legislative process before it can become law.
