Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill (Criminal History Access Act of 2026) amends 28 U.S.C. §534 to permit the FBI to share criminal history records with "peace officer standards and training agencies," defines that term and expands the definition of "State," and directs the Attorney General to amend 28 C.F.R. part 20 within 180 days to implement the change.
Liberal emphasizes privacy, due process, anti‑bias safeguards
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill accomplishes a focused administrative change by adding a new recipient category for criminal history information and by mandating prompt regulatory revision, but it leaves substantial operational, fiscal, and accountability details to the forthcoming regulations or other instruments.
The bill (Criminal History Access Act of 2026) amends 28 U.S.C. §534 to permit the FBI to share criminal history records with "peace officer standards and training agencies," defines that term and expands the definition of "State," and directs the Attorney General to amend 28 C.F.R. part 20 within 180 days to implement the change.
Narrow, administrative change supporting police vetting with limited costs; typical content that attracts bipartisan support despite privacy questions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill accomplishes a focused administrative change by adding a new recipient category for criminal history information and by mandating prompt regulatory revision, but it leaves substantial operational, fiscal, and accountability details to the forthcoming regulations or other instruments.
Liberal emphasizes privacy, due process, anti‑bias safeguards
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes privacy, due process, anti‑bias safeguards
Cautiously supportive of tools that strengthen officer accountability, but concerned the bill lacks privacy, due-process, and anti‑discrimination safeguards.
Would condition support on clear limits, auditing, and transparency.
Sees this as a pragmatic, technical fix to improve vetting and state training oversight, but wants implementation details, funding clarity, and privacy safeguards.
Likely to support if those are addressed.
Generally favorable because it strengthens state-level law enforcement standards and helps keep problematic officers from moving jurisdictions.
May caution against unnecessary federal micromanagement in regulations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative change supporting police vetting with limited costs; typical content that attracts bipartisan support despite privacy questions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes privacy, due process, anti‑bias safeguards
Narrow, administrative change supporting police vetting with limited costs; typical content that attracts bipartisan support despite privac…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill accomplishes a focused administrative change by adding a new recipient category for criminal history information and by mandating prompt regulatory revision, but it l…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.