Child sex trafficking already a felony in CA. Bill addresses solicitation of 16- and 17-year-olds

California lawmakers are embroiled in a debate over legislation that would increase penalties on people who solicit 16- and 17-year-olds for sex.

But a flood of social media posts misrepresented the scope of the bill under consideration.

"CA Democrats block bill to make sex trafficking minors a felony — again," read what looked like a headline screenshot that conservative podcaster Benny Johnson shared April 29 on X.

"I’m at a loss for words," Johnson wrote on the post that had 3.7 million views as of May 5. 

Other conservative X accounts, including Libs of TikTok and End Wokeness, echoed the claim.

"I’ve got to be missing something," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote April 29, resharing Libs of TikTok’s post. "Surely sex trafficking of minors is *already* a felony in California. Right?"

That’s just it: Yes, sex trafficking of minors is already a felony in California. Democrats’ actions did not change that. 

Under Section 236.1 of California’s penal code, human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act is punishable by prison time ranging from five years to life. The Legislature voted in 2023 to categorize it as a "serious felony," which can lead to longer sentences for repeat offenders. 

The headline Johnson shared came from an April 29 Breitbart story about Assembly Bill 379, originally sponsored by Rep. Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento. The measure deals with penalties for solicitation of a minor for prostitution, a different crime from human trafficking.

"Solicitation is different from trafficking because trafficking involves coercion of a person into a commercial sex act, not just buying sex," said Aya Gruber, a University of Southern California criminal law professor.

 The crime of solicitation does not require an actual sex act to take place; it refers to the agreement itself to offer sex in exchange for something of value. Additional felony charges, such as child molestation, rape or lewd acts on a child can be applied when someone sexually abuses — or attempts to sexually abuse — a minor. 

Under current California law, soliciting a minor under age 16 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony on first offense and a felony on subsequent offenses. 

Solicitation of 16- and 17-year-olds is currently a misdemeanor unless the minor is a victim of human trafficking, in which case age doesn’t matter. Solicitation of any minor who is being trafficked can be charged as a felony. 

A portion of Krell’s original bill would have made it possible to punish anyone who solicits people ages 16 and 17 with a felony, regardless of whether the minor had been a victim of human trafficking. 

But Krell removed that provision from her bill, she said, under pressure from other lawmakers, so that the legislation could advance.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said he supports extending the law to allow felony prosecution for solicitation of 16- and 17-year-olds, joining Republicans who announced they plan to push for the provision to be restored to Krell’s bill.

Krell said her aim was to cut into the demand for prostitution. "What we haven't done well in California is address demand," Krell said during an April 29 committee hearing on the bill. "We've figured out how to go after sex traffickers a little bit better than we did before, but we've really left this gap of not going after the buyers."

Before 2024, solicitation of a minor was a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. That changed in September 2024, when Newsom signed a bipartisan bill making it a felony. At the time Democrats similarly amended the bill to exclude the felony provision from applying to those who solicit 16- and 17-year olds, unless they were victims of human trafficking.

According to KCRA-TV, Democrats at the time said they worried extending the felony provision could have the unintended consequence of criminalizing older teens who are in consensual relationships with other minors.

Featured Fact-check

Donald Trump

stated on April 29, 2025 in an interview

“If people come into our country illegally, there’s a different standard” for due process.

The arguments against the bill haven’t changed.

"If an 18-year-old offers another 17-year-old anything in exchange for any sex act, they could be prosecuted for a felony," Natasha Minsker, an attorney for the criminal justice advocacy group Smart Justice California, which opposes the provision, told PolitiFact. "Just the threat of calling the police could be used to blackmail a scared teen." 

Rep. Nick Shultz, D-Burbank, who chairs the Public Safety Committee and opposes the provision, told KCRA-TV in April, "The exploitation of any children …  it's already unlawful to do anything like that in the state of California." 

On May 1, Politico reported that Democratic leadership removed Krell’s name from the bill and approved removing the age provision largely on party lines. The bill now heads to the appropriations committee. 

Our ruling

X posts claimed that California Democrats blocked a bill "to make sex trafficking minors a felony."

Sex trafficking minors is already a felony in California, with prison time ranging from five years to life, and Democrats’ actions did not change that. 

At issue is a bill that included a provision that would have extended felony charges to people who solicit 16- and 17-year-olds for sex. Solicitation is different from sex trafficking under California law.

Democrats struck that portion from the bill, leaving the current provision intact: On first offense, solicitation of a 16- and 17- year old is a misdemeanor unless the victim is being trafficked, in which case it can be charged as a felony. Subsequent offenses are charged as felonies.

There is an element of truth that Democrats removed a part of a bill that would have implemented harsher penalties for those who solicit older teens for sex. But the viral claim that lawmakers blocked a bill to make sex trafficking a felony ignores critical facts that would give a different impression — namely that it already is a felony. 

We rate the claim Mostly False.