Espionage law now explicitly criminalizes video of defense secrets
H.R. 2939 — Drone Espionage Act · Filed by Jennifer Kiggans (R-VA) · 13 cosponsors · Introduced Apr 17, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends the federal espionage statute (18 U.S.C. § 793) to explicitly criminalize the taking or transmitting of video recordings of defense information. Currently, the statute covers photographs and photographic negatives but does not explicitly mention video. The bill closes that gap by adding 'video' to the list of prohibited recording methods, making it a federal crime to record and transmit video of classified or sensitive defense materials.
Why we flagged it
The bill is a narrow, technical amendment to the federal espionage statute designed to close a gap in coverage by explicitly criminalizing video recording of defense information alongside existing prohibitions on photographs and other recording methods.
What the text implies
- The amendment may affect First Amendment protections for journalists and documentarians recording at or near defense facilities, as video recording now faces the same criminal liability as photography under the espionage statute.
- The bill does not define 'video' or distinguish between professional journalism, documentary work, and hostile intelligence gathering—all video recording of defense information becomes equally criminal.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill strengthens criminal penalties for espionage and unauthorized disclosure of defense secrets, which protects national security and classified information from hostile actors. However, it may chill legitimate journalism, documentary filmmaking, and public oversight by criminalizing video recording of defense facilities or information, even in contexts where photography is already prohibited but the distinction between photo and video was previously meaningful for First Amendment analysis.