TL;DR: On April 23, 2026, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act (H.R. 8470). The bill would require the government to get a warrant before using facial recognition, automated license plate readers, or purchasing your location data from brokers. It closes the third-party doctrine loophole that lets agencies bypass the Fourth Amendment by buying what they can't legally collect. It bans warrantless biometric scanning in public spaces. And it lets you sue federal employees who violate your privacy. The timing is pointed. It dropped one day before Speaker Johnson unveiled his latest FISA 702 extension plan that includes zero warrant requirements.
What the Bill Actually Does
The Surveillance Accountability Act is a surprisingly direct piece of legislation. It starts with a simple premise: the Fourth Amendment already bans warrantless government searches. The problem is that courts and agencies have spent decades carving out exceptions. This bill fills those holes.[1][2]
Here's the breakdown:
Universal Warrant Requirement
Any government search that "significantly intrudes" on a person's privacy must be conducted with a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate and based on probable cause. No more administrative subpoenas for your data. No more "consent" extracted through terms of service.[1]
Third-Party Doctrine Is Dead
The government can't access data held by ISPs, banks, cloud services, or data brokers without a warrant. Period. This kills the legal fiction that sharing your data with a company means you've "voluntarily" given it to the government too.[1][2]
Standard exceptions still apply: consent, exigent circumstances, plain view. This isn't about stopping cops from chasing active threats. It's about stopping the quiet, systematic, warrantless collection of data on everyone, all the time.
The Data Broker Loophole That Makes This Necessary
Right now, the government can't tap your phone without a warrant. But it can buy your phone's location data from a broker for a few thousand dollars. Same information. No judge involved.[4]
ICE does this. The DEA does this. The FBI does this. The IRS does this. In 2023, an investigation found that government agencies had spent at least $1.4 billion purchasing personal data from commercial brokers, circumventing the Fourth Amendment by treating surveillance as a purchase order.[4]
The Surveillance Accountability Act slams this door shut. Under the bill, data held by third parties gets the same protection as data in your home. A warrant based on probable cause, reviewed by a judge, describing what they're looking for and why.
Massie put it bluntly: "The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches conducted by the government are not optional."[1]
The Timing Is Not Subtle
Massie and Boebert filed this bill on April 23. One day later, Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled his third attempt to extend FISA Section 702, the warrantless surveillance program that lets the NSA collect communications of foreign targets (and, incidentally, millions of Americans caught in the net).[5][6]
Johnson's bill? Three-year extension through 2029. No warrant requirement. No meaningful reform. A comptroller general audit that reports back in a year, after the surveillance has already continued uninterrupted.[5]
The contrast is jarring. On the same week Congress is debating whether to rubber-stamp warrantless spying for three more years, two of its own members are filing a bill that says warrantless spying should never have been legal in the first place.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), former Freedom Caucus chair, responded to Johnson's FISA proposal with "we're not there yet."[5] The Surveillance Accountability Act is the kind of legislation that explains where "there" actually is for the privacy hawks.
Every Surveillance Tool the Government Doesn't Want You Thinking About
The bill modernizes what counts as a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The current legal framework was written for physical searches: filing cabinets, glove compartments, desk drawers. The Surveillance Accountability Act updates it for how government surveillance actually works in 2026:[1][2][3]
- Metadata collection: who you called, when, for how long
- Geolocation tracking: where your phone goes, every minute of every day
- Financial records: what you buy, where you buy it, how you pay
- Internet activity: browsing history, search queries, app usage
- Facial recognition: scanning crowds for faces that match government databases
- License plate readers: building permanent maps of every driver's movements
- Biometric tracking: gait analysis, voice recognition, behavioral profiling
Massie connected the dots in his press conference: surveillance technology can reveal "visits to schools, gun ranges, medical offices, and driving patterns."[3] It's not abstract. It's a map of your life that the government currently builds without asking a judge.
It Hits Local Cops Too
This isn't just about the NSA or FBI. The bill targets the pipeline that lets federal surveillance flow to local police departments, and vice versa.[2]
Right now, federal agencies pressure local departments to share data collected through Flock license plate readers, Ring doorbell partnerships, and facial recognition systems. The data flows upward with minimal oversight. A traffic stop in Tulsa feeds a federal database in Virginia.
The Surveillance Accountability Act bans federal agencies from pressuring local departments to share warrantlessly collected surveillance data. If the feds want it, they get a warrant. If local cops want to share it voluntarily, the data still needs judicial authorization.[2]
This matters because the federal government has been using local police as a workaround for years. Can't legally collect the data yourself? Fund a local department's Flock camera network and ask nicely. The bill closes that backdoor.
Will It Pass?
Almost certainly not. At least not in its current form.
The intelligence community will fight it. The FBI will say it cripples investigations. Law enforcement groups will call it a gift to criminals. The same arguments they've made against every surveillance reform for 20 years.
But that's not the only way to read this bill. Massie has signaled he may pursue a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver to bypass committee leadership and force a floor vote. He used the same tactic to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. It worked.[3]
And the political dynamics are unusual. Warrant requirements for government surveillance have bipartisan support. During the FISA 702 debate, 20 House Republicans voted against their own Speaker to demand reforms. Democrats have been pushing the Government Surveillance Reform Act with similar warrant provisions. The votes are potentially there, if leadership lets the bill reach the floor.[6]
Kentucky (Massie's home state) recently passed its own legislation regulating automated license plate readers. The momentum isn't coming from Washington. It's coming from constituents who are tired of being watched.[3]
The Gap Between What We Have and What This Bill Promises
Consider where we stand right now:
- ICE is developing facial recognition smart glasses for agents to identify people on the street
- CBP just installed a military-grade AI surveillance tower in a residential California beach town
- DOGE employees are using AI to monitor federal workers for political loyalty
- The government spent two weeks debating FISA 702 without ever adding a warrant requirement
- Data brokers sell your location history to anyone with a purchase order, including agencies that couldn't get a judge to sign off
The Surveillance Accountability Act says all of that is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment already says it. This bill just forces the government to act like it.
Whether Congress agrees is a different question entirely.
What You Can Do
Contact Your Representative
H.R. 8470 is in the House Judiciary Committee. If your representative sits on that committee, tell them to schedule a hearing. If they don't, tell them to co-sponsor it. Find your rep here.
Connect It to FISA 702
Section 702 expires April 30. If your rep supports extending warrantless surveillance while ignoring a bill that requires warrants, ask them to explain the contradiction.
Support Organizations Fighting for Warrants
The EFF, ACLU, and Brennan Center have been fighting for warrant requirements for years. Their legal and advocacy work creates the pressure that makes bills like this possible.
Watch the Discharge Petition
Massie has hinted at bypassing committee leadership. A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a floor vote. Track whether your representative signs it.
References
- Rep. Thomas Massie: Reps. Massie and Boebert Introduce the "Surveillance Accountability Act" (April 23, 2026)
- Rep. Lauren Boebert: Representatives Massie, Boebert Introduce Surveillance Accountability Act (April 23, 2026)
- Spectrum News: Massie Introduces Surveillance Accountability Act (April 24, 2026)
- NPR: Your Data Is Everywhere. The Government Is Buying It Without a Warrant (March 25, 2026)
- NPR: After 2 Failed Votes, Mike Johnson Unveils New Plan to Extend Key U.S. Spy Powers (April 24, 2026)
- Brennan Center: Congress Is Ready for Surveillance Reform. Will the House Rise to the Occasion?
Published: April 25, 2026