The SAFE KIDS Act targets surrogacy arrangements involving citizens of foreign adversarial nations by making surrogacy contracts void and unenforceable if the surrogate is in the United States and a prospective parent or broker is connected to a foreign entity of concern. The bill defines key terms, including what counts as a foreign entity of concern, a surrogacy agreement, and a surrogate parent, and it imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who commercially facilitate such arrangements.
An exception exists for two legally married prospective parents with at least one US citizen or lawful permanent resident. The bill also establishes custody rules that defer to state law and the best interests of the child when the surrogacy contract is void, rather than recognizing the contract or its terms.
At a Glance
What It Does
The act voids surrogacy agreements in which a surrogate in the US enters into a contract with a foreign entity of concern or a broker connected to such a entity, and it prohibits commercial facilitation of these arrangements. It also sets a narrow exception for married couples with at least one US citizen or LPR.
Who It Affects
Surrogate mothers in the United States, surrogacy brokers, and prospective parents who are citizens or permanent residents of foreign entities of concern. It also implicates family courts and law enforcement agencies in enforcing the prohibitions and handling custody.
Why It Matters
It addresses perceived exploitation and national security concerns related to international surrogacy, clarifies enforceability, and provides a pathway for custody determinations that do not rely on void contracts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a framework to prevent certain international surrogacy arrangements from taking place in the United States. It defines who counts as a foreign entity of concern and who is a surrogate parent, and it introduces a presumption that a surrogate relinquishes parental rights when the contract involves a foreign entity of concern.
The primary action of the bill is to render void and unenforceable any surrogacy agreement where the surrogate is in the United States and the prospective parent or broker is connected to a foreign entity of concern. An explicit exception exists for two legally married prospective parents with at least one US citizen or lawful permanent resident, allowing a narrow pathway for some US-based couples.
The bill also imposes criminal penalties on surrogacy brokers who knowingly or recklessly facilitate such arrangements, and it directs custody determinations for children born under void agreements to follow state best-interest standards rather than the terms of the void contract. In short, the act seeks to curb international exploitation by foreign adversaries in domestic surrogacy while preserving a narrow, lawfully grounded route for certain married US-based couples and ensuring custody outcomes align with child welfare norms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The term 'foreign entity of concern' is defined by reference to the list in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2).
A surrogacy agreement involving a US-based surrogate and a foreign entity of concern or broker is void and unenforceable.
There is a narrow exception for two legally married prospective parents with at least one US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Surrogacy brokers who knowingly or recklessly facilitate such arrangements face penalties under federal law (fines and/or up to 1 year imprisonment).
Custody of a child born under a void surrogacy contract is determined by the state where the surrogate resides, under the child's best interests, without regard to the contract.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and purposes
This section articulates the bill’s rationale: foreign entities of concern exploit surrogacy laws in the United States, and the practice can involve US citizens or residents who are used to obtain citizenship for children or to facilitate trafficking. It frames the act as a national security measure and as a statutory step to curtail such exploitation, setting the stage for the prohibitions and penalties that follow.
Definitions
Key terms are defined to lay a precise groundwork for later provisions. A foreign entity of concern is drawn from a federal list, a prospective parent is anyone entering into a surrogacy arrangement, a surrogacy agreement covers contracts regardless of form, and a surrogacy broker is anyone who assists in forming or executing such agreements. The section also introduces a presumption of relinquishment of parental rights when the contract involves a foreign entity of concern.
Void and unenforceable international surrogacy contracts
Subject to a narrow exception, any surrogacy agreement between a US-based surrogate and a prospective parent who is a citizen or permanent resident of a foreign entity of concern, or involving a broker tied to such an entity, is void and unenforceable. The exception requires two legally married prospective parents with at least one US citizen or LPR, creating a limited gateway for specific domestic arrangements.
Commercial facilitation prohibited; penalties
The bill makes it illegal for surrogacy brokers to knowingly or recklessly induce, arrange, procure, or facilitate a void surrogacy agreement. Violations trigger penalties under title 18 of the U.S. Code, including fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, ensuring a deterrent against facilitation of these arrangements.
Custody of child when international surrogacy contracts are void
When a surrogacy contract is void and unenforceable, custody is determined by the best interests of the child under the law of the state where the surrogate resides. The court does not give effect to the void contract or any related agreement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. surrogate mothers seeking protection from exploitation linked to foreign entities of concern, with enforceable protections under domestic law.
- U.S.-based prospective parents who pursue surrogacy through lawful channels and wish to avoid exploitative or foreign-adversary arrangements.
- Federal and state law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing surrogacy-related prohibitions and penalties.
- Family courts and child-welfare agencies that gain clearer custody principles based on best-interests analysis.
- Domestic surrogacy clinics and providers that maintain compliance with federal prohibitions and reduce exposure to illegal brokerage activity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Surrogacy brokers who knowingly or recklessly facilitate void arrangements face penalties, increasing compliance risk and legal exposure.
- Prospective parents connected to foreign entities of concern lose access to a pathway for surrogacy in the U.S. through void contracts.
- Domestic clinics and agencies may incur additional compliance costs to verify legitimacy of arrangements and screen for foreign-adversary connections.
- State and federal courts may incur administrative costs in applying the best-interest standard and handling related custody determinations.
- Foreign entities and foreign-based prospective parents may face restrictions and legal barriers to domestic surrogacy arrangements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing national security and child welfare with individual rights to form a family creates a difficult policy trade-off: a broad shield against exploitation may restrict legitimate family-building options and risk uneven enforcement across states, while a narrower approach could leave gaps that foreign adversaries could exploit.
The act raises questions about definitional scope and enforcement practicality. By tying the definition of a foreign entity of concern to a federal list, it hinges on the accuracy and scope of that list.
Enforcement could push certain international surrogacy activities underground or drive them outside traditional channels, with potential gaps in protection for children or surrogate mothers in some circumstances. The interaction with state custody laws and the best-interest standard will require careful judicial interpretation to avoid inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.