A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Federal Interviews Reform Act," requires the recording of interviews conducted by Department of Justice officers or employees. These recordings must use electronic audio or video technology when a person is suspected of a criminal offense. The mandate covers investigations of Federal offenses or cases where the Department is assisting State, local, or tribal agencies. It applies to both custodial and non-custodial interviews, including those involving U.S. citizens outside of the United States. Finally, the bill establishes rules for how long these recordings must be kept.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill enhances due process by making unrecorded statements inadmissible in federal court.
- Scored +6
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill increases accountability by requiring electronic recordings of suspect interviews.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The requirement for recordings increases transparency regarding law enforcement interview procedures.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The mandate for recording interviews could lead to increased levels of government surveillance.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Evidence Restrictions: Under Section 2(d), any statement or information obtained during an interview that is not recorded according to these rules cannot be used as evidence by the Government in Federal court. This ensures that unrecorded interviews cannot be used against individuals in legal proceedings.
-
Broad Application: According to Section 2(b), the requirements apply to both custodial and non-custodial interviews, as well as interviews of U.S. citizens conducted outside of the United States, providing a wide scope of protection for suspects.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Informant Exception: Section 2(b)(1) states that the recording requirements do not apply to communication with a confidential informant, which creates a scenario where interviews are not subject to these rules.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill enhances due process by making unrecorded statements inadmissible in federal court. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The requirement for recordings increases transparency regarding law enforcement interview procedures. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Recording requirements provide a record to prevent coerced or unrecorded statements from being used against citizens. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill mandates new procedural requirements for federal law enforcement officers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill increases accountability by requiring electronic recordings of suspect interviews.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The requirement for audio/video recording provides a digital record that can protect privacy rights against unauthorized statements.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The mandate for recording interviews could lead to increased levels of government surveillance.
- 7/16/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Ben ClineRepublican · Virginia
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas