Daniel Goldman (D-NY)
DHS Surveillance Technology Moratorium Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
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 "DHS Surveillance Technology Moratorium Act of 2026" stops the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from spending money on new, renewed, or expanded contracts for surveillance and data analytics technologies used for immigration enforcement. This pause remains in effect until the DHS Inspector General completes an audit and a public report is published. The bill requires a detailed review of how personal data is collected and whether it impacts civil liberties or U.S. citizens. Once the moratorium ends, the Secretary must provide reports to Congress on the safeguards in place. Additionally, the DHS must provide an annual public report on its use of these technologies moving forward.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +9
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Directly targets the reduction and auditing of invasive surveillance and data collection.
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Mandates public reports on surveillance technologies, contractors, and privacy impact assessments.
- Scored +7
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Reduces the expansion of technologies used to track and identify individuals for immigration enforcement.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -8
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
Imposes a moratorium on the expansion and acquisition of domestic surveillance technologies.
- Scored -3
Does this tighten control of the border?
May temporarily hinder the acquisition of new surveillance tools used for border and immigration enforcement.
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Negative for surveillance technology contractors who lose potential government contracts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency: The bill requires the Secretary to publish an unclassified and publicly available report listing all used surveillance technologies, the names of contractors, and the purposes of the technology (Section 5(a)).
-
Protection of Privacy and Civil Liberties: The bill mandates an audit to examine the privacy and civil liberties impacts of these technologies, as well as their use during lawful protests, assembly, or protected speech (Section 4(b)).
-
Accountability for Data Use: The bill requires an examination of whether data relating to United States citizens is collected, retained, or analyzed (Section 4(b)).
-
Ongoing Oversight: After the moratorium ends, the DHS must publish an annual report including summaries of privacy and civil liberties complaints and their resolutions (Section 7(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential Delay in Threat Response: While there is an exception for imminent violence or national security threats, the general moratorium stops the award or expansion of contracts unless a case-by-case waiver is granted by the Secretary (Section 3(a) and 3(d)).
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? — Reduces the expansion of technologies used to track and identify individuals for immigration enforcement. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Directly restricts surveillance technologies used specifically for immigration enforcement. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Protects against surveillance tools that historically disproportionately impact Black communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General protection against invasive government data analytics. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals are often more frequently subjected to government surveillance. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — General protection against invasive government data analytics. Would students be better off under this? — Protects privacy of young people and those involved in campus activism/protests. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas typically have higher densities of surveillance technology. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases privacy protections for a demographic likely to use social media, which the bill audits. Would billionaires be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights for all citizens. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would retired people be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights for all citizens. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General increase in privacy rights. Would business owners be better off under this? — Negative for surveillance technology contractors who lose potential government contracts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Directly targets the reduction and auditing of invasive surveillance and data collection. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates public reports on surveillance technologies, contractors, and privacy impact assessments. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Protects individuals from unchecked surveillance during protests and protected speech. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Adds an oversight layer before the government can deploy predictive or probabilistic surveillance systems. Does this give the federal government more power? — Restricts the operational capabilities and procurement power of federal agencies.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Requires audits on data collection, retention, and the use of commercial data brokers. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Limits the government's ability to contract for certain high-tech surveillance services from private companies.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Specifically audits the use of surveillance during lawful protests and protected speech. Does this change how police departments operate? — Increases oversight and transparency regarding surveillance tools used by federal agencies. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Limits surveillance technologies that often disproportionately target minority communities. Does this tighten control of the border? — May temporarily hinder the acquisition of new surveillance tools used for border and immigration enforcement.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Imposes a moratorium on the expansion and acquisition of domestic surveillance technologies.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires audits and reports before funds are obligated for new surveillance technologies. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill places a moratorium on new and expanded spending for certain surveillance contracts.
- 7/7/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
- 7/6/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/15/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Gilbert CisnerosDemocrat · California
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Nydia VelázquezDemocrat · New York
Nikema WilliamsDemocrat · Georgia