Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
This bill repeals the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires a Federal warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for electronic surveillance, searches, pen/trap devices, tangible‑things production, or targeting when the target is a United States citizen.
Privacy emphasis vs. national security tradeoffs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and direct substantive statutory change that specifies operative prohibitions, definitions, and criminal penalties, but it provides limited implementation detail, fiscal acknowledgement, interaction mapping across the legal framework, and oversight provisions.
This bill repeals the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
It requires a Federal warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for electronic surveillance, searches, pen/trap devices, tangible‑things production, or targeting when the target is a United States citizen.
It bars using information about U.S. citizens obtained under Executive Order 12333 or incidentally during non‑citizen surveillance as evidence or part of investigations.
Sweeping, high‑controversy change to national-security law with minimal compromise features; historically such wholesale repeals rarely become law without major amendment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and direct substantive statutory change that specifies operative prohibitions, definitions, and criminal penalties, but it provides limited implementation detail, fiscal acknowledgement, interaction mapping across the legal framework, and oversight provisions.
Privacy emphasis vs. national security tradeoffs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy emphasis vs. national security tradeoffs
Likely broadly favorable because the bill tightens Fourth Amendment protections and limits warrantless surveillance.
It removes FISA authorities that many civil‑liberties advocates view as enabling mass or secret collection.
Some caution about national security gaps and the need for oversight and alternatives is likely.
Mixed reaction: supports stronger privacy safeguards but worries about national security and operational disruption.
Concerned the bill repeals FISA outright without a clear replacement or transition plan.
Would seek compromises to balance civil liberties with intelligence needs.
Mixed-to-somewhat supportive: appeals to limited‑government and civil‑liberties instincts opposing broad surveillance.
However, mainstream conservatives valuing national security will worry about reducing intelligence capabilities.
Preference for reforms that preserve core counterintelligence tools with stronger privacy limits.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Sweeping, high‑controversy change to national-security law with minimal compromise features; historically such wholesale repeals rarely become law without major amendment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy emphasis vs. national security tradeoffs
Sweeping, high‑controversy change to national-security law with minimal compromise features; historically such wholesale repeals rarely bec…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and direct substantive statutory change that specifies operative prohibitions, definitions, and criminal penalties, but it provides limited implementation…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.