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 federal agencies from using facial recognition technology as a means of verifying a person's identity. It defines facial recognition technology as a security system that automatically identifies and verifies an individual from a digital image or video frame. The bill does not address other uses of facial recognition (such as investigative or surveillance uses not tied to identity verification) or state and local government use.
Who benefits
Individuals who interact with federal agencies requiring identity verification, such as taxpayers, Social Security and benefits applicants, and travelers at TSA checkpoints, who would gain an alternative to biometric verification. Privacy advocates and civil liberties groups concerned about government biometric data collection. People wrongly flagged by facial recognition errors, including studies showing higher error rates for women and people with darker skin tones.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies such as the IRS, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security that have adopted or piloted facial recognition for identity verification and would need to revert to or expand alternative methods, potentially increasing costs and processing times. Technology vendors contracted to supply facial recognition systems to federal agencies would lose that business. Agencies citing facial recognition as a tool to reduce identity fraud may face increased fraud risk or slower verification processes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that facial recognition technology poses serious privacy risks because it collects sensitive biometric data without meaningful consumer consent, and that studies from the National Institute of Standards and Technology have found higher error rates for women and people with darker skin tones, raising fairness concerns. They contend that requiring the federal government to use non-biometric identity verification methods protects citizens from mass biometric data collection and reduces the risk of wrongful identification or government misuse of facial data.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that facial recognition can be faster and more accurate than many alternative verification methods once properly calibrated, and that some agencies, including the IRS and TSA, have used it to reduce identity fraud and speed processing for the public. They contend a blanket prohibition removes a useful tool without regard to context, potentially forcing agencies back to slower or less secure verification methods and increasing vulnerability to identity theft and fraud.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure how federal agencies operate, including the technology and procedures they use for identity verification; this is a straightforward exercise of congressional oversight over agency operations rather than a claim resting on judicial precedent. The bill also touches on Fourth Amendment concerns about government collection of biometric data, an area shaped by Carpenter v. United States (2018) regarding digital records and privacy expectations, though this bill does not itself require judicial interpretation of that doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict executive branch agencies' choice of technology for identity verification, limiting agency discretion in implementing programs, while agencies retain authority over how they achieve verification through other means.
Historical precedent
Several federal agencies and localities have previously imposed moratoriums or restrictions on facial recognition use, including the 2020 Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act proposals in Congress, though none of these prior bills were enacted into law.