Federal agencies must name targets before spying, certify under oath, and report publicly.

What it does

This bill restricts how federal agencies can use administrative subpoenas to obtain customer communications and records from phone, email, and messaging services. It requires agencies to identify specific customers by name or account before issuing a subpoena, prohibits subpoenas aimed at investigating constitutionally protected speech or assembly, mandates written certification that subpoenas serve legitimate purposes, allows service providers to notify customers of subpoenas unless a court orders secrecy, and requires federal agencies to publicly report annually how many subpoenas they issue and how many accounts they target.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is to constrain government power to conduct warrantless bulk surveillance and to restore transparency and customer notification rights. It is fundamentally a check on executive/law-enforcement authority, not a market intervention or commemorative act.

What the text implies

• Certification requirement under penalty of perjury creates a new enforcement mechanism: false certifications could expose prosecutors and agents to criminal liability, potentially chilling aggressive subpoena practices.
• Mandatory public reporting of subpoena volume and statutory authority may reveal patterns of surveillance targeting specific communities or causes, enabling civil-rights litigation and legislative oversight.
• Service-provider notification rights (absent a court order) shift the burden of secrecy from default silence to affirmative judicial action, making dragnet surveillance harder to conceal.
• Prohibition on subpoenas targeting 'constitutionally protected activities' is broad and may invite litigation over what counts as protected speech, assembly, or petition—creating uncertainty for prosecutors but clarity for citizens.

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

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens gain concrete protections: agencies cannot secretly collect their communications in bulk, must justify subpoenas under oath, and cannot target them for lawful speech or assembly. Service providers must notify customers of subpoenas unless a court specifically orders silence, and the public gains transparency through mandatory federal reporting of subpoena volume and scope.

Named in the bill

Federal law enforcement agencies, Service providers (telecommunications, email, messaging platforms), U.S. courts (issuing preclusion-of-notice orders), 18 U.S.C. § 2703, 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• May 20, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• May 20, 2026 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”

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

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $240,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 8 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 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Ron Wyden, the sponsor, reported $375,070 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. — $120,000 on 1 filing
• Demand Progress Action, Inc — $70,000 on 1 filing
• Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. — $50,000 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.