Secret government seizures of your emails now have expiration dates and you get to see what was take

What it does

This bill amends federal wiretap law to establish clearer rules for when law enforcement can obtain a court order preventing internet service providers from notifying customers that their emails, messages, or account data have been seized. It sets time limits (1 year for child exploitation cases, 90 days for others), requires judges to write detailed findings before approving secrecy, and mandates that customers eventually be told what happened—along with a copy of what was taken—unless the information involves child abuse material or other illegal content. It also requires the Justice Department to publish annual statistics on how often these secret seizures occur.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to establish statutory procedures, judicial safeguards, and transparency requirements for nondisclosure orders in digital surveillance. It is not a deregulation or a carve-out; it is a codification of due-process protections and a constraint on executive secrecy.

What the text implies

• The 'presumption' in § 2705(b)(2)(B)(ii) for child exploitation cases allows judges to skip the written-findings requirement entirely, creating a fast-track approval pathway that may reduce judicial scrutiny in the most sensitive cases.
• Redaction authority in § 2705(b)(11) is vague ('preserve the secrecy or integrity of an investigation') and may allow government to withhold large portions of seized data from customers even after notice is given.
• The 180-day window for customers to request copies of seized data is relatively short and assumes customers will know to ask; many may not learn of the seizure in time.
• Annual reporting aggregates data by judicial district and offense type but does not require disclosure of individual case outcomes, limiting transparency on whether NDOs are actually advancing prosecutions.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain enforceable rights to eventual notice of secret government seizures of their digital communications, access to copies of what was taken, and judicial oversight with written findings. The automatic expiration dates and mandatory notification prevent indefinite secret surveillance. Annual public reporting increases democratic accountability.

Named in the bill

Department of Justice, Attorney General, House Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal Bureau of Investigation (implied), Electronic communications service providers, Remote computing service providers

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.

• Nov 17, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Nov 17, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary and Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• Nov 18, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Nov 20, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote”
• Aug 31, 2026 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote”
• Aug 31, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Fitzgerald moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

8 lobbying clients named this bill on 8 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $6,770,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 10 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 88% of bills with at least one filing.

Scott Fitzgerald, the sponsor, reported $915,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $3,500 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Meta Platforms, Inc. and Various Subsidiaries — $5,990,000 on 1 filing
• Business Software Alliance — $320,000 on 1 filing
• Reform Government Surveillance — $140,000 on 1 filing
• Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. — $120,000 on 1 filing
• Microsoft Corporation — $90,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.