HOMEFRONT Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 8, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to shield U.S. persons and interactive computer services from foreign censorship laws by limiting their enforcement in U.S. courts and restricting U.S. government cooperation with foreign censorship efforts.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to restrict U.S. domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments or orders issued under foreign censorship laws against U.S. persons, particularly if the conduct would be protected by the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Act. It also prohibits U.S. government officials from assisting foreign governments in enforcing such laws and prevents the extradition of U.S. persons for related conduct. Furthermore, the bill establishes a private right of action for affected U.S. persons and mandates annual reports and a public database on foreign censorship instances.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to safeguard fundamental First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens and companies against extraterritorial overreach by foreign governments. They contend it prevents foreign regimes from imposing their restrictive speech standards on American soil or through U.S. legal mechanisms, thereby protecting free expression and digital platforms from undue foreign influence.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill could strain international relations by unilaterally rejecting foreign legal judgments and potentially complicate international cooperation on combating genuinely harmful online content, such as child exploitation or terrorism propaganda, if the broad definition of 'censorship' is applied too widely. Concerns could also be raised about potential diplomatic reciprocity and the practical challenges of consistently interpreting foreign laws against U.S. constitutional standards.
The bill is concise, allowing for a thorough review within the time typically allotted for legislative consideration.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(a)
Non-recognition of Foreign Censorship Judgments
This provision prohibits U.S. domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments or orders that are based on foreign censorship laws against a U.S. person, if the underlying conduct would be protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The party seeking to enforce the foreign judgment bears the burden of proving that the conduct would not be protected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safeguarding fundamental American free speech principles against attempts by foreign governments to impose their restrictive speech laws extraterritorially, ensuring U.S. constitutional rights are paramount.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could lead to diplomatic tensions or create a safe harbor in the U.S. for speech deemed illegal or harmful in other jurisdictions, potentially complicating international efforts to combat certain types of online content.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances U.S. constitutional free speech protections against principles of international legal reciprocity and potential diplomatic implications, asserting U.S. legal sovereignty over foreign judgments.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(b)
Due Process for Foreign Jurisdiction
This section stipulates that U.S. courts cannot recognize or enforce foreign judgments related to censorship unless the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the U.S. person met the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The burden of demonstrating this jurisdictional compliance rests with the party seeking recognition or enforcement.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(c)
Section 230 Protections for Interactive Computer Services
This provision prevents U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments against providers of interactive computer services (like social media platforms) if the judgment relates to information that would be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. This means U.S. platforms would generally not be held liable in U.S. courts for content originating abroad if they wouldn't be liable domestically.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(e)
Restriction on U.S. Government Assistance
This provision prohibits any officer or employee of the U.S. federal, state, or local government from assisting a foreign government in investigating or enforcing a foreign censorship law against a U.S. person, provided the conduct in question would be protected under the First Amendment if it occurred in the United States.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(f)
Protection Against Extradition for Censored Speech
This provision states that a U.S. person cannot be extradited from the United States to a foreign country if the extradition is sought in connection with a violation of a foreign censorship law, and the conduct for which extradition is sought would be protected under the First Amendment if it occurred in the U.S. This applies even if there is an existing treaty obligation.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(g)
Private Right of Action for Unenforceable Judgments
This provision grants any U.S. person against whom an unenforceable foreign censorship judgment is entered the right to bring an action in an appropriate U.S. district court. They can seek a declaratory judgment that the foreign order is unenforceable, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, and statutory damages of $25,000.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(h)
Annual Report on Foreign Censorship
This provision mandates the Attorney General, in consultation with other relevant federal agencies, to submit an annual public report to Congress. The report must detail instances of foreign censorship affecting U.S. persons, the costs imposed, the utility of U.S. agreements with censoring entities, and recommendations for countering foreign censorship efforts.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(i)
FTC Database of Censored Speech
This provision directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish and maintain a database. This database will include instances of speech that occurred within the United States and is protected under the First Amendment, but which has been censored or targeted for censorship under foreign laws. It explicitly excludes proprietary company data and obscene content.
This subsection clarifies that a party's appearance in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment or order does not prevent them from opposing the recognition or enforcement of that judgment under this section, nor does it represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for procedural clarifications, ensuring that individuals are not inadvertently penalized for engaging with foreign legal processes.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical protection, ensuring U.S. persons are not forced to choose between defending themselves in a foreign court and preserving their rights under U.S. law to challenge the judgment's enforceability.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such procedural protections, as they generally enhance fairness and due process for individuals facing foreign legal actions.
Estimated impact: Prevents strategic litigation tactics by foreign entities that could trap U.S. persons into waiving their rights to challenge foreign judgments in U.S. courts.
This definition broadly defines 'foreign censorship law' as a law of a foreign country that imposes liability for conduct that would be protected under the First Amendment in the U.S., explicitly including restrictions related to online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, harmful content, compelled disclosure of user information, and other similar restrictions.
Section 2(a), new 28 U.S.C. 4106(j)(2)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically placed at the end for clarity, the broad scope of this particular definition is highly consequential and could be easily missed by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition is crucial for ensuring the bill's protections are comprehensive, covering the full spectrum of ways foreign governments attempt to suppress speech that would be protected in the U.S.
Case against: Critics might argue the broad definitions, particularly for 'online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, harmful content,' could be overly expansive and lead to unintended consequences, potentially encompassing legitimate foreign regulations on harmful content that do not align with U.S. First Amendment interpretations.
Estimated impact: The scope of this definition will largely determine which foreign laws are subject to non-recognition and non-enforcement in the U.S., significantly impacting international legal disputes.