Sponsors (3)
The bill substantially strengthens privacy, transparency, and legal remedies for Americans by restricting federal acquisition, access, retention, and use of certain surveillance data, at the cost of new administrative and compliance burdens, legal uncertainty, and operational limits that may slow or complicate some law‑enforcement and national‑security activities.
Individuals — including protesters, immigrants, students, and people with disabilities — gain stronger privacy protections: federal warrant requirements for location and imaging surveillance, a 30‑day default retention limit (with narrow court extensions), prompt deletion of non‑pertinent data, strict segregation and limits on use (including protections for First Amendment activity), and explicit保
Taxpayers and the public gain greater transparency and accountability: federal agencies must contemporaneously log accesses, the Attorney General must review accesses, produce detailed reports to Congress every 180 days with an unclassified public summary, Inspectors General must audit compliance, and defendants can obtain unlawfully‑collected/over‑retained data, strengthening oversight and legal‑
Local governments, schools, and other federal grant recipients face restrictions on acquiring listed surveillance technologies with federal funds: Byrne JAG and other federal grants cannot be used to buy covered surveillance tech (with narrow, controlled exceptions), reducing federally funded deployment of these technologies in communities.
Local, state, and federal law enforcement may face real operational constraints: warrant requirements, restricted access, prompt deletion, and First Amendment limitations can delay or limit evidence collection in multi‑jurisdictional or time‑sensitive investigations and could impede developing later leads.
Federal, state, and local agencies will incur substantial new administrative and financial burdens: frequent logging, 180‑day reporting, audits, training, retention/destruction processes, and grant compliance will consume staff time and money and may divert resources from other operations or services.
Ambiguities about scope and lists could trigger legal uncertainty and litigation: reliance on a Jurisdictional Wall List, questions over what practices are “otherwise permitted by law,” and severability carveouts may generate lawsuits and delay implementation, creating compliance confusion for jurisdictions and vendors.
Based on analysis of 11 sections of legislative text.
Requires federal warrants and limits federal funding for use of certain local surveillance technologies, with retention, reporting, auditing, and civil remedies for violations.
Official title: To prohibit Federal law enforcement agencies from using or accessing State or local surveillance equipment or data to circumvent warrant requirements, to establish a Jurisdictional Wall List of covered technologies, and for other purposes.
Introduced July 15, 2026 by Keith Self · Last progress July 15, 2026
Bars most Federal law enforcement access to surveillance data collected by state or local agencies with certain high-risk devices unless a federal judge issues a warrant, and restricts federal purchase or grant-funded acquisition of those devices. Sets retention limits, reporting, auditing, training, emergency and consent exceptions, and creates private right of action with administrative sanctions for violations.