Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…
The ENCRYPT Act of 2025 prevents states and their subdivisions from requiring manufacturers, developers, sellers, or providers of covered products or services to build surveillance backdoors or decryption capabilities. It also forbids states from prohibiting the manufacture, sale, lease, offering, or public provision of products or services because they use encryption. "Covered product or service" applies to hardware, software, electronic devices, or online services that affect interstate commerce and are made available to the general public.
Privacy protection vs law-enforcement and national-security access
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a substantive federal prohibition preempting certain state actions and supplies basic definitions.
The ENCRYPT Act of 2025 prevents states and their subdivisions from requiring manufacturers, developers, sellers, or providers of covered products or services to build surveillance backdoors or decryption capabilities.
It also forbids states from prohibiting the manufacture, sale, lease, offering, or public provision of products or services because they use encryption. "Covered product or service" applies to hardware, software, electronic devices, or online services that affect interstate commerce and are made available to the general public.
Low fiscal impact and clear pro-encryption stance aid support, but high federalism conflict and law-enforcement opposition lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a substantive federal prohibition preempting certain state actions and supplies basic definitions. It lacks implementation detail, enforcement provisions, exception handling, and fiscal or oversight provisions that would ordinarily accompany a major national preemption.
Privacy protection vs law-enforcement and national-security access
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy protection vs law-enforcement and national-security access
Likely supportive because the bill protects strong encryption and individual privacy from state-level backdoors and surveillance mandates.
It aligns with civil liberties priorities by blocking state efforts to weaken security features used by the public.
Generally favorable to national uniformity and encryption, but cautious about operational impacts on law enforcement and public safety.
Will want clear, narrow exceptions and cost/accountability safeguards.
Skeptical or opposed due to concerns about restricting law enforcement and national security access to encrypted evidence.
Prefers ensuring public safety and criminal investigations are not hampered.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal impact and clear pro-encryption stance aid support, but high federalism conflict and law-enforcement opposition lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy protection vs law-enforcement and national-security access
Low fiscal impact and clear pro-encryption stance aid support, but high federalism conflict and law-enforcement opposition lower overall od…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a substantive federal prohibition preempting certain state actions and supplies basic definitions. It lacks implementation detail, enforcement provisio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.