- Targeted stakeholdersAvoids immediate disruption to intelligence collection and ongoing national security operations reliant on Title VII au…
- Targeted stakeholdersProvides Congress additional time to review or amend surveillance authorities without a legal authorization gap.
- Federal agenciesMaintains continuity for federal agencies and contractors performing surveillance-related work, reducing short-term ope…
A bill to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and for other purposes.
Presented to President.
This bill amends the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to change the repeal date for title VII authorities from April 30, 2026 to June 12, 2026.
The change is effective on enactment or April 29, 2026, whichever is earlier.
The measure is a short-term extension of existing title VII surveillance authorities in the U.S. Code (50 U.S.C. 1881; 18 U.S.C. 2511).
Very narrow, low-cost, temporary measure increases odds, though surveillance remains politically sensitive and amendments could complicate passage.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive statutory amendment that is precisely drafted to effect a short-term extension of specified authorities by changing statutory dates. The legal edits and effective-date language are specific and clear.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and wants reforms before extension.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Targeted stakeholdersBrief extension prolongs authorities viewed by critics as expansive surveillance powers and potential privacy intrusion…
- Targeted stakeholdersExtends collection authorities without mandated new oversight or substantive privacy reforms.
- Targeted stakeholdersMay allow continued incidental collection of U.S. persons' communications under existing rules.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and wants reforms before extension.
Likely opposed to a bare short-term extension without reforms.
Views title VII as posing civil liberties and privacy risks and wants statutory safeguards before renewal.
Likely to view the bill as a pragmatic, temporary measure to avoid operational gaps while Congress negotiates longer‑term fixes.
Wants clear timelines and oversight commitments accompanying the extension.
Likely supportive; sees the extension as necessary to preserve vital intelligence authorities and national security capabilities while Congress finalizes policy.
Prefers minimal additional constraints.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Very narrow, low-cost, temporary measure increases odds, though surveillance remains politically sensitive and amendments could complicate passage.
- Potential for floor amendments or controversial riders
- Intensity of civil‑liberties opposition in either chamber
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and wants reforms before extension.
Very narrow, low-cost, temporary measure increases odds, though surveillance remains politically sensitive and amendments could complicate…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive statutory amendment that is precisely drafted to effect a short-term extension of specified authorities by changing statutory dates.…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.