A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic 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
The Right to Record Act of 2026 establishes a legal way for people to sue Federal law enforcement officers and the United States if their right to record, observe, or peacefully protest law enforcement activities is violated. It defines specific prohibited actions, such as intimidating people or unlawfully seizing recording equipment. Injured parties may receive actual, statutory, or punitive damages. The bill also requires Federal law enforcement agencies to provide annual training to officers on these rights.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +9
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Specifically includes immigration officers in the scope of accountability for rights violations.
- Scored +9
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?
Strengthens First Amendment protections through a statutory cause of action.
- Scored +9
Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life?
Directly protects and provides remedies for the First Amendment right to record and protest.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
Explicitly prohibits the use of surveillance to retaliate against people for recording or protesting.
- Scored -3
Does this give the federal government more power?
Increases the liability of the federal government by waiving sovereign immunity in civil actions.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Potential increase in federal spending due to statutory and punitive damage payouts to plaintiffs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Financial Redress for Rights Violations: Individuals who have their rights violated can seek actual damages, statutory damages of $25,000 per violation, or punitive damages up to $100,000 for violations involving malice or reckless disregard. (Section 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2))
-
Accountability for the Government: The United States is held liable for the conduct of Federal law enforcement officers regardless of agency policy or officer immunity, as the Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. (Section 3(b)(2))
-
Protection Against Retaliation: The bill explicitly prohibits officers from threatening, intimidating, harassing, or using surveillance to retaliate against people for recording or protesting. (Section 3(b)(3)(B), 3(b)(3)(D), and 3(b)(3)(G))
-
Legal Support: Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Section 3(d))
-
Officer Education: The bill mandates that every Federal law enforcement officer receive annual training on how to respect the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest. (Section 3(e))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Rights Due to Physical Restriction: A person loses the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest if they physically restrict or restrain an officer who is taking official actions under color of law. (Section 3(c)(1))
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Specifically includes immigration officers in the scope of accountability for rights violations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses systematic issues of law enforcement accountability that disproportionately affect this group. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Provides protections specifically for those interacting with immigration officers and federal agents. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases accountability and protection of civil liberties during federal interactions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Statutory damages and attorney's fees make it easier for low-income individuals to seek justice. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increases accountability and protection of civil liberties during federal interactions. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects the right to record and protest regardless of location. Would students be better off under this? — Protects students and young activists who frequently document protests and police activity. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Higher likelihood of interactions with federal law enforcement in urban centers. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases general protection of First Amendment rights for all citizens. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Increases legal protections and avenues for redress against government misconduct. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases legal protections and avenues for redress against government misconduct. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Increases legal protections and avenues for redress against government misconduct. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases legal protections and avenues for redress against government misconduct. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Increases legal protections and avenues for redress against government misconduct. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults are more likely to engage in protesting and recording public events. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides legal protection for citizens exercising First Amendment rights. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides legal protection for citizens exercising First Amendment rights.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Strengthens First Amendment protections through a statutory cause of action. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Encourages the recording and observation of law enforcement activities to ensure transparency. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides a clear legal path and financial remedy for those whose rights are violated by federal agents. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Protects individuals from unlawful seizure of recording equipment and retaliatory surveillance. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the liability of the federal government by waiving sovereign immunity in civil actions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Directly protects and provides remedies for the First Amendment right to record and protest. Does this change how police departments operate? — Establishes a legal cause of action and financial penalties for officers who violate recording and protest rights. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Increases accountability for federal law enforcement, which historically impacts marginalized communities more frequently.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Creates new financial liabilities for the federal government through damage awards. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal expenditures through the waiver of sovereign immunity and mandatory damage awards. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Potential increase in federal spending due to statutory and punitive damage payouts to plaintiffs.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Explicitly prohibits the use of surveillance to retaliate against people for recording or protesting.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Prohibits officers from adding biometric or personal info to databases as retaliation for recording.
- 8/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 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.
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan