PRIA Logo™
HR7901119th CongressWALLET

Government Surveillance Reform Act of 2026

Sponsored By: Representative Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Introduced

Summary

would limit warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. It would standardize FISA court names and terms, tighten query and targeting limits, require detailed documentation and reporting, and set a 5-year cap on retention of covered information.

Show full summary
  • Families and individuals: Would make it harder for agencies to query or access communications of U.S. persons without a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), consent, or narrow emergency exceptions. Most covered information must be destroyed after 5 years.
  • Intelligence and law enforcement agencies: Would require agencies to log queries in a Query Record System, report compliance within 90 days, adopt formal accuracy procedures, and restrict "reverse targeting" except with a warrant or narrow emergency. The bill would extend §702 authority through April 20, 2030.
  • Tech companies, data brokers, and vehicle owners: Would ban Federal law enforcement from buying covered personal data from data brokers and force attestations from brokers and intermediaries about lawful transfers. It would also require warrants for most vehicle data and a 48-hour deadline to seek a warrant after emergency access.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

6 provisions identified: 4 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.

New warrant rules for online data

If enacted, you would generally need a warrant for web browsing, search, and location records. Warrants for web browsing would be limited to the period needed and no more than 30 days unless extended. The bill would remove the old 180-day exception so stored messages of any age would normally require a warrant. It would also tighten state and local rules for getting electronic content and require courts and providers to follow new notice and preservation steps.

Tighter limits on warrantless surveillance

If enacted, the bill would sharply limit warrantless collection and queries of people in the United States. It would ban warrantless queries and most warrantless access, bar "reverse targeting," and expand who counts as a covered person. Covered information would generally have to be destroyed within five years. The bill would also narrow how section 702 and related authorities may be used while setting a new Section 702 expiration date of April 20, 2030.

Stronger privacy for vehicle data

If enacted, federal officers would generally need a Rule 41 warrant to access covered vehicle data from noncommercial vehicles. In narrow emergencies where life is at risk, some officials could access data but must apply for a warrant within 48 hours. The bill would let vehicle operators and owners give consent and says passengers age 14 or older can object. Data obtained in violation could not be used in any federal, state, or local proceeding.

More court transparency and oversight

If enacted, the bill would require accuracy procedures for FISC applications and the Attorney General to publish accuracy and minimization rules within 180 days. Inspectors General must audit FISC applications and section 702 directives within one year and publish unclassified reports. The court would appoint privacy and technical amici and provide written reasons for ancillary claims. DNI and PCLOB would publish new reports and estimates about collection and protected activities.

Limits on data brokers and provider demands

If enacted, federal agencies would be banned from buying covered personal data from data brokers except in narrow cases. The bill would force data brokers to attest to lawful sourcing and would require courts to use the strictest federal or constitutional standard before ordering non‑provider covered organizations to disclose data. Providers could not knowingly disclose stored message contents or subscriber details except in listed exceptions. Courts could not force technical assistance from providers unless the help is necessary, narrowly tailored, and ordered with a specific court-approved method.

New legal remedies and limits on evidence

If enacted, the bill would bar federal agencies from using information that state or local actors obtained in ways that would violate federal law. It would create a statutory injury-in-fact test so some people can sue when they reasonably fear or have taken steps to avoid unlawful surveillance. The Attorney General could also delay parts of the law for up to one year to allow agencies to build systems or hire staff.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

OH • R

Cosponsors

  • Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

    WA • D

    Sponsored 3/12/2026

  • Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

    CA • D

    Sponsored 3/12/2026

  • Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51]

    CA • D

    Sponsored 3/12/2026

  • Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]

    NY • D

    Sponsored 3/26/2026

  • Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6]

    OH • R

    Sponsored 3/30/2026

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation