The analysis, which was conducted from a symbolic politics perspective, indicated that the TVPA was directed at more than one audience, including the general public, mass movements, victims, lawbreakers, members of Congress, States, and interest groups. These audiences were reassured or threatened by the Act, educated about the problem, and sent messages about the line between right and wrong. The author argues that not all audiences responded to the symbols that were viewed as oversimplified or stereotyped. For example, interest groups and members of Congress who made up a more sophisticated audience were not reassured simply by the enactment of the Act, they needed the further reassurance of its actual implementation. The TVPA set out a three-pronged approach to the protection of victims of trafficking, the prevention of trafficking, and the prosecuting of traffickers. The TVPA was reauthorized in 2003 and 2005. The theoretical perspective of symbolic politics argues that political acts can be viewed as symbolic acts designed to please the general public. This perspective also claims that policymakers consider citizen’s perception of and/or reaction to the Act just as important as the actual substance of the Act. A symbolic politics perspective thus views criminal justice policymaking as fulfilling several functions: (1) reassurance and threat function; (2) education function; (3) simplifying the complex problem of crime; (4) moral education function; and (5) model of good policy for the States. Data for the analysis were gathered through a case study methodology in which the 2003 and 2005 reauthorizations were examined using newspaper accounts, congressional hearings, and congressional documents obtained from Web sites. Data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Notes, references