Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a broad moratorium on the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies by federal, state, and local governments, with limited exceptions requiring specific congressional authorization.
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. It also makes State and local governments ineligible for certain Federal public safety grants (Byrne grant program) if they engage in biometric surveillance without a substantially similar prohibition.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is crucial for protecting civil liberties, privacy, and preventing potential misuse of powerful surveillance technologies that could lead to discrimination and chilling effects on free speech and association. They emphasize the need for explicit legislative oversight given the technology's rapid advancement and potential for abuse, ensuring government accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that a broad prohibition on biometric surveillance could hinder law enforcement's ability to combat serious crimes, identify suspects, and ensure public safety, especially in rapidly evolving threat landscapes. They may contend that the technology, when properly regulated, is a valuable tool for security and efficiency, and that a blanket ban is an overreaction.
The bill is concise and easily readable, allowing for a thorough understanding within a short timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Federal Biometric Surveillance Prohibition
This section makes it unlawful for any Federal agency or official to acquire, possess, access, or use biometric surveillance systems or information derived from them within the United States. This establishes a default ban on such technologies for federal entities, preventing their deployment without specific legislative approval.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to safeguard privacy and civil liberties from pervasive government surveillance, preventing potential abuses and discriminatory applications of biometric technologies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision could severely hamper federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies' ability to conduct investigations, identify threats, and ensure national security, potentially putting the public at risk.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual privacy rights against government interests in security and law enforcement capabilities, potentially limiting tools available to federal agencies.
Section 3(b)
Requirements for Congressional Authorization
This subsection outlines the strict conditions under which Congress can explicitly authorize the use of biometric surveillance systems. Any such authorizing Act must describe with particularity the entities, types of biometrics, purposes, prohibited uses, data management standards, auditing requirements for accuracy (including by gender, skin color, and age), protections for due process and civil rights, and compliance mechanisms.
Section 3(c)
Judicial Investigations and Proceedings
Information obtained in violation of this Act is inadmissible in federal criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings, except in cases alleging a violation of this section itself. The section also creates a private right of action for individuals aggrieved by a violation, allowing them to sue the Federal Government for actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. State Attorneys General can also bring civil actions on behalf of their residents.
Section 3(e)
Federal Funding Restrictions
This section explicitly prohibits Federal law enforcement agencies from obligating or expending Federal funds for the purchase or use of a biometric surveillance system. Additionally, no Federal agency may use any unallocated funds appropriated to the agency for such purposes.
Section 4(a)
Moratorium on State and Local Government Use
Beginning on the first day of the first fiscal year after enactment, State and local governments will become ineligible to receive Federal financial assistance under the Byrne grant program unless they comply with a law or policy that is substantially similar to the Federal prohibition on biometric surveillance outlined in Section 3(a). This acts as a strong incentive for states and localities to adopt similar bans.
Excludes identification based on fingerprints or palm prints not ascertained from a distance from the definition of 'other biometric recognition.'
Section 2(6)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms and exclude specific items to avoid ambiguity and unintended consequences. It clarifies the bill's scope without needing a separate operative section.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clarifies the scope of the bill, ensuring that traditional, close-contact biometric methods like fingerprinting, which are widely accepted and have different privacy implications than remote surveillance, are not inadvertently prohibited.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such clarifying exclusions, as they narrow the bill's scope rather than expanding it, preventing unintended impacts on established practices.
Estimated impact: Ensures that established law enforcement practices involving direct fingerprint or palm print collection are not affected by the moratorium, maintaining existing operational capabilities.
Defines 'in the United States' to include all areas within the external boundary of the United States, its territories and possessions, specifically mentioning airports, ports of entry, and border zones.
Section 2(5)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining geographical scope. The explicit mention of border zones clarifies the bill's intent to apply protections even in areas often subject to different legal standards, ensuring comprehensive coverage.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures comprehensive privacy protections, extending the moratorium to areas like borders and ports where surveillance is often heightened, preventing a loophole for federal agencies.
Case against: Opponents might argue that applying the moratorium to border zones could impede national security efforts and the ability of border patrol to identify individuals attempting illegal entry or or smuggling, potentially creating vulnerabilities.
Estimated impact: Extends the federal biometric surveillance prohibition to critical border and entry areas, impacting federal agencies operating there and enhancing privacy for individuals in these zones.