Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a broad moratorium on Federal government use of biometric surveillance and incentivizes State and local governments to adopt similar bans by conditioning Federal grant funding.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Federal agencies and officials from acquiring, possessing, accessing, or using biometric surveillance systems or information derived from them within the United States, unless explicitly authorized by a specific Act of Congress meeting strict criteria. It also makes State and local governments ineligible for certain Federal public safety grants (Byrne grants) if they do not comply with a substantially similar prohibition. The bill creates a private right of action for individuals aggrieved by violations and outlines penalties for Federal officials.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that biometric surveillance technologies, particularly facial recognition, pose significant threats to privacy, civil liberties, and can exacerbate existing biases, leading to discriminatory outcomes. They contend that a moratorium is necessary to prevent widespread government surveillance, protect individual rights, and allow for the development of robust regulatory frameworks that prioritize public safety without sacrificing fundamental freedoms. The bill's strict authorization requirements ensure any future use is carefully considered and transparent.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that biometric surveillance tools are essential for modern law enforcement and national security operations, enabling agencies to identify suspects, locate missing persons, and prevent crimes more effectively. They contend that a blanket prohibition would severely hinder public safety efforts, compromise national security, and deprive law enforcement of valuable investigative tools. Critics may also argue that conditioning federal grants constitutes an overreach of federal power into state and local autonomy.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on Federal Government Use of Biometric Surveillance
This provision makes it illegal for any Federal agency or official to use or even possess biometric surveillance systems, including facial recognition and other forms of biometric identification (like gait or voice recognition from a distance), within the United States. This also applies to information obtained from such systems operated by other entities.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this blanket prohibition is crucial for safeguarding civil liberties and preventing potential abuses of powerful surveillance technologies. They emphasize the risks of mass surveillance, misidentification, and discriminatory application, particularly against marginalized communities, which this prohibition aims to mitigate.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this prohibition would severely hamper the ability of federal law enforcement and national security agencies to conduct investigations, identify criminals, and protect the public. They argue that biometric surveillance is a vital tool in modern policing and that a complete ban removes a critical layer of security.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to privacy and protection from potential government overreach against the perceived need for advanced surveillance tools by law enforcement and national security agencies for public safety.
Section 3(b)
Strict Exception for Congressional Authorization
The bill allows for an exception to the federal prohibition, but only if an Act of Congress explicitly authorizes the use of biometric surveillance. This authorization must be highly specific, detailing who can use it, for what purposes, what types of biometrics are allowed, how data is managed, auditing requirements for accuracy (including by demographic group), and strong protections for civil rights.
Section 3(c)
Judicial Remedies and Evidence Admissibility
This section establishes that any information obtained by the Federal Government in violation of the biometric surveillance prohibition is generally inadmissible in court proceedings, except in cases alleging a violation of this Act itself. It also creates a 'cause of action,' allowing individuals harmed by a violation to sue the Federal Government for damages (actual, punitive, attorney's fees) and injunctive relief. State Attorneys General can also sue on behalf of their residents.
Section 4(a)
Conditioning Byrne Grants for State and Local Governments
Beginning in the first fiscal year after the bill's enactment, State and local governments will lose eligibility for Federal financial assistance under the Byrne grant program if they do not have a law or policy in place that is 'substantially similar' to the Federal prohibition on biometric surveillance outlined in Section 3(a).
The definition of 'other biometric recognition' explicitly states that it 'does not include identification based on fingerprints or palm prints not ascertained from a distance.'
Section 2(6)(B)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to precisely delineate the scope of the prohibition, ensuring that traditional fingerprinting or palm printing methods (which typically require physical contact or close proximity) are not inadvertently banned. It clarifies the bill's focus on remote or 'from a distance' biometric capture.
Case for: Proponents would argue this carve-out is necessary to avoid disrupting established, widely accepted, and generally less privacy-invasive forensic identification methods like traditional fingerprint analysis. It ensures the bill targets newer, more pervasive surveillance technologies.
Case against: Critics might argue that even traditional fingerprint databases can be misused or that the distinction between 'from a distance' and not is becoming increasingly blurred with technological advancements, potentially creating loopholes for future biometric collection methods.
Estimated impact: This clarification prevents the bill from inadvertently banning standard forensic practices, thereby limiting its impact to newer, more controversial forms of biometric surveillance.
State or local governments are ineligible for Byrne grants unless they are complying with a law or policy that is 'substantially similar' to the federal prohibition set forth in section 3(a).
Section 4(a)
Why it matters:The use of 'substantially similar' is common legislative drafting to provide flexibility while still requiring adherence to the spirit of the federal law. It avoids mandating identical language, which might be impractical for diverse state and local legal frameworks.
Case for: Proponents would argue that 'substantially similar' allows states and localities the flexibility to tailor their policies to their specific legal structures while still achieving the bill's core objective of banning biometric surveillance. It avoids overly prescriptive federal mandates.
Case against: Critics might contend that 'substantially similar' is vague and could lead to inconsistent application and enforcement. They may argue it creates uncertainty for states and localities regarding compliance and could lead to legal challenges over interpretation.
Estimated impact: The interpretation of 'substantially similar' will determine the true reach and effectiveness of the bill's incentive structure, potentially leading to varying levels of biometric surveillance bans across states and localities.