HR-3782-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Andrew Ogles (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would prohibit all federal government agencies from using facial recognition technology as a method of verifying a person's identity. It defines facial recognition technology as any automated system that identifies or verifies an individual from a digital image or video frame. The bill does not include exceptions for law enforcement, national security, or any other agency function.
Who benefits
Members of the public who interact with federal agencies and are concerned about biometric data collection, including those who distrust government surveillance. Racial and ethnic minorities who may be disproportionately misidentified by facial recognition systems, according to NIST accuracy studies. Privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations. Competing identity verification technology vendors (e.g., document-based or knowledge-based verification companies) who would gain market share. Individuals with religious or philosophical objections to biometric identification.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies that currently use facial recognition for identity verification, such as the TSA, SSA, IRS, and CBP, which would need to adopt alternative verification methods. Taxpayers who may bear transition and implementation costs for replacement systems. Individuals who find facial recognition faster or more convenient than alternatives. Agencies whose fraud-prevention programs rely on biometric verification. Technology companies that have contracts with the federal government to provide facial recognition services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal facial recognition systems have documented accuracy disparities — a 2019 NIST study found error rates up to 100 times higher for Black and Asian faces compared to white faces — making their use in high-stakes identity verification contexts both unreliable and inequitable. They contend that the federal government should not collect and process sensitive biometric data from millions of Americans without explicit consent, and that a categorical prohibition is necessary because voluntary guidelines and agency self-regulation have proven insufficient to prevent misuse.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that facial recognition, when properly implemented, is one of the most accurate and fraud-resistant identity verification tools available, and that a blanket prohibition would force agencies to rely on less secure alternatives, potentially increasing identity fraud and improper payments in programs like Social Security and tax refunds. They contend that the bill's broad scope — with no exceptions for border security, benefits verification, or national security — is disproportionate, and that targeted accuracy standards or audit requirements would address documented disparities without eliminating a tool that protects program integrity.