On December 19, 2025 and January 30, 2026, the United States Sentencing Commission released proposed amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for 2026. See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Proposed 2026 Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Dec. 2025 and Jan. 2026). Taken together, these amendments suggest a meaningful recalibration of how federal sentences may be calculated and, for some defendants, an opportunity for more individualized and potentially less severe outcomes.
Highlights of the 2026 Proposed Amendments
The 2026 proposed amendments include both targeted revisions, such as changes to loss calculations in economic crime cases, and broader changes that reflect a shift toward greater consideration of individual offender characteristics. Two proposed revisions impact white-collar defendants in particular.
Increased Thresholds
First, the proposed amendments consider inflation increases to the offense level threshold dollar amounts for a variety of crimes, including embezzlement, fraud, insider trading, criminal infringement of copyright or trademark, bribes, extortion, evading import duties, and more. For example, currently under §2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft), if the loss to a victim exceeds $6,500, the increase in offense level is “add 2.” Under the newly proposed amendment, the loss to the victim would need to exceed $9,000 for the offender to pick up that two-level increase. (Dec 2025 at 44).
While inflation amendments will raise threshold dollar amounts for economic crimes, it also raises the valuations of monetary tables, such as the Offense Level Fine Table (§8C2.4), increasing base fine amounts. In addition to the inflation impacts, these proposals would introduce new offense-specific characteristics aimed at better capturing individual culpability and the harm to the victim. Id. For example, the Commission has proposed a new enhancement where an offense causes “substantial non‑economic harm,” such as significant psychological trauma, reputational damage, or invasion of privacy, even where the monetary loss may be relatively modest. (Dec. 2025 at 65). The proposals also refine the “sophisticated means” analysis to focus on whether the offense involved a greater level of complexity than is typical, rather than relying on rigid or outdated indicators. Id.
Expanded Sentencing Options and Mitigation
Second, the proposed amendments greatly expand Zones B and C in the Sentencing Table (§5A1.2), providing offenders with more supervised release and split-sentence sentencing options than such offense levels are currently afforded, as many currently fall within Zone D (imprisonment only).
The amendments place greater emphasis on mitigation, both before and after the offense conduct. Id. For example, Part B of the proposed amendment would add two new downward adjustments to §2B1.1. The first would provide for a reduction where the defendant committed the offense at the direction of an employer for fear of adverse employment consequences, acted based on an intimate or familial relationship or threats, or was unusually vulnerable to persuasion due to a physical or mental condition. Id. at 70 (Dec. 2025). The second would provide for a tiered reduction based on whether, before learning of a criminal investigation or prosecution, the defendant voluntarily ceased the criminal activity, made efforts to return money or property to the victim, or reported the offense to appropriate authorities. Id.
Public Commentary
Public commentary on the proposed amendments has been robust, with bar associations, defense organizations, and practitioners generally supporting the inflationary adjustments and increased emphasis on rehabilitation and individualized sentencing.
See, e.g., N.Y.C. Bar Ass’n, Comments on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Proposed 2026 Amendments to the Guidelines Manual; Nat’l Ass’n of Crim. Def. Lawyers, Comments on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2026 Proposed Amendments (Feb. 10, 2026).
At the same time, commenters have cautioned that certain new enhancements—particularly those focused on non‑economic harm—could increase exposure in cases involving significant victim impact, underscoring that the proposals are not uniformly defendant‑friendly.
Impact on White Collar Defendants
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines have been advisory since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker and remain the required starting point for federal sentencing calculations.
And while ultimate sentencing discretion rests with the court, proposed guideline changes matter well before sentencing because they reshape investigative focus, charging decisions, plea negotiations, and the factual record developed in anticipation of guideline exposure. For individuals and companies under investigation, these proposals underscore the growing importance of early strategy and cooperation.
Likewise, inflation‑adjusted loss thresholds could alter charging decisions, plea negotiations, and risk assessments. For some defendants, conduct that previously placed them in a higher guideline range may fall into a materially different category under an updated framework. Similarly, the fines for offenses will be higher across the board.
Looking Ahead
The Commission has not yet voted on whether to adopt the proposed amendments in whole or in part, and Congress retains the power to modify or reject them. Still, the volume and substance of public commentary suggest real momentum toward reform.
Whether these changes ultimately deliver more proportional and individualized sentencing will depend on how they are finalized and applied. What is clear, however, is that federal sentencing is once again in a period of active recalibration—and any entity or individual involved in a federal investigation should ensure they are receiving the most up-to-date legal guidance.