A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 seeks to amend how the government handles delayed notice requirements for warrants, orders, or subpoenas. It establishes specific time limits for orders that prevent a provider from notifying a customer about a government investigation. These orders can last up to one year for offenses involving child pornography or sexual exploitation, and up to 90 days for other investigations. The bill outlines strict judicial requirements, including the need for written findings of fact to prevent issues like evidence destruction or witness intimidation. It also establishes procedures for how a customer must be notified once a nondisclosure order expires. Finally, it mandates an annual report from the Attorney General to provide transparency regarding these requests and their outcomes.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires annual reporting by the Attorney General on the use of nondisclosure orders.
- Scored +7
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Establishes strict time limits and notification requirements for government access to electronic records.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
Limits the duration of secrecy for government data requests and ensures user notification.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
While adding oversight, it formalizes the process for nondisclosure orders in electronic surveillance.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Investigations: The bill allows a court to issue orders to prevent the destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, or intimidation of witnesses (Section 2/a/1/A and 2/a/2/A/i).
-
Increased Accountability for Law Enforcement: The Attorney General is required to publish an annual report detailing the number of applications, orders granted or denied, and resulting arrests or convictions (Section 2/b/1).
-
Standardized Notification Procedures: Once a nondisclosure order expires, the government must notify the individual using at least two specific methods, such as personal service or registered mail, within 5 business days (Section 2/a/9).
-
Right to Information: Upon expiration of an order, a customer can request a copy of the information that was disclosed to the government, provided it does not contain certain illegal materials (Section 2/a/10/A).
-
Judicial Oversight: A court can only grant these orders if they are narrowly tailored and there is no less restrictive alternative available (Section 2/a/2/A/ii).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Information Access for Certain Offenses: Even if a customer requests information after an order expires, the government is not required to provide records pertaining to child pornography, sexual exploitation of children, or other illegal material (Section 2/a/10/A/ii).
-
Presumption of Adverse Results: In cases involving child pornography or sexual exploitation, a court may presume that certain adverse results—such as destruction of evidence or flight—are met without needing a specific written decision (Section 2/a/2/B/ii).
-
Restrictions on Challenging Orders: While providers can petition the court to modify or vacate an order, the obligation to disclose information is stayed for 72 hours upon filing such a motion (Section 2/a/5/B).
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 make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires annual reporting by the Attorney General on the use of nondisclosure orders. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Establishes strict time limits and notification requirements for government access to electronic records. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Requires written judicial determinations and a right to request disclosed information. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Reduces secrecy for journalists and news media targets of government orders.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for users of electronic communications. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for users of electronic communications. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for high-frequency users of electronic communications.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — Increases oversight and transparency of government surveillance and data collection. Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Provides protections and reporting for orders affecting the news media.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Limits the duration of secrecy for government data requests and ensures user notification.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — While adding oversight, it formalizes the process for nondisclosure orders in electronic surveillance.
- 9/14/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 8/31/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5266-5267)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6048.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5266-5268)
- Mr. Fitzgerald moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 11/20/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 11/18/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 11/17/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York