Proposed House Bill Would Require Warrants for Government AI Surveillance

In brief - Reps. Thomas Massie and Lauren Boebert introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act, which would requiring warrants for government access to third-party digital data. - The bill covers AI-assisted surveillance, biometric data, and automated license plate readers. - The legislation would allow Americans to sue the government for Fourth Amendment violations. Artificial intelligence is expanding the government’s ability to analyze Americans’ digital records. A new bill aims to require a warrant before federal agencies can access that data. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act on Thursday. If passed, the legislation would amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code to codify a broad warrant requirement for government searches, close what supporters describe as the “third-party doctrine” loophole, and give individuals the right to sue the government for Fourth Amendment violations. Naomi Brockwell, founder of the privacy-focused nonprofit Ludlow Institute, helped draft the bill in coordination with Massie’s office. In an interview with Decrypt, Brockwell said AI has significantly changed the nature of surveillance. “Now that we have AI, that idea of limitation is completely out the window,” Brockwell said. “AI can sort people, rank them, adjust credit scores, and use all of this data to paint intimate profiles and preemptively conduct law enforcement.” Today at 10:30am ET, @RepBoebert and I will host a press conference at the Capitol House Triangle to announce our new Surveillance Accountability Act. It requires government searches to be conducted with a warrant based on probable cause, in accordance with the 4th Amendment. pic.twitter.com/MVM5yU5sz2 — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 23, 2026 The bill targets the third-party doctrine, a legal precedent from the 1970s stemming from Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures and generally requires warrants supported by probable cause. The third-party doctrine emerged from two cases—United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland—which held that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy for information voluntarily shared with third parties, such as banks or phone companies. Brockwell said those cases involved narrow circumstances long before the internet existed, and have since been applied far more broadly. “Fast forward to 2026, every single thing we do has a third-party involved,” Brockwell said. “The entire internet relies on third-parties, and governments have decided that when they want to search someone, they no longer have to get approval from a judge.” The bill also addresses biometric surveillance and automated license plate readers. Brockwell pointed to the “mosaic theory” of privacy, a legal framework some courts have used when evaluating bulk data collection. “If your car is in public and I take a snapshot of it, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” she said. “But what if I took 10,000 snapshots of your car while it's driving, and matched your exact location to track you? That's a different question. That's what automatic license plate readers are doing now.” While the legislation aims to protect the privacy of citizens, circumventing that privacy is a lucrative business, with companies like Palantir and Clearview AI selling AI-driven tools used by law enforcement to analyze images, location data, and other records. The issue came to a head earlier this year when Anthropic clashed with President Donald Trump’s administration over whether the U.S. Government could use its AI systems for mass surveillance and unrestricted military use. Brockwell said the bill has received bipartisan interest and sees it as complementary to U.S. Representatives Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden’s effort to reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes certain warrantless surveillance activities. While critics argue that warrant requirements can slow investigations, Brockwell said the proposal restores judicial oversight. “What it does is stop abuses of power,” she said. “If law enforcement wants to go after someone, they can absolutely do that. They just need a warrant.” The office of Representative Massie did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Decrypt.