HR-9857-119
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Sponsored by Ro Khanna (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would let Members of Congress, their families, and congressional staff request removal of personal information (home addresses, phone numbers, financial account numbers, children's school details, and similar data) from government agency public records and from websites within 72 hours of a request. It would also ban data brokers from knowingly selling or buying this information about any U.S. person or U.S. resident, and would create a private right of action for at-risk individuals to sue over violations.
Who benefits
Members of Congress, their immediate family members, congressional staff, and former Members, who could shield personal details from public exposure; more broadly, all U.S. persons and residents would gain some protection from data brokers selling their information, since the data-broker sales ban applies to "covered persons" generally, not just at-risk individuals.
Who is hurt
Data brokers and websites that compile and sell personal information would face new compliance costs, removal obligations, and litigation exposure; journalists, watchdog groups, and researchers who rely on public records or aggregated data to locate or investigate public officials could face friction despite the news-reporting exception; government agencies (federal, state, local) would bear administrative costs implementing 72-hour removal deadlines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that threats and physical attacks against lawmakers and their families have risen sharply, including incidents where attackers used home addresses or family details found online, and that removing this information reduces the risk of violence without touching legitimate news reporting, which is explicitly exempted. They contend the data-broker sales ban extends similar protection to ordinary Americans, addressing a broader privacy gap that current law leaves unaddressed.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill could be used to suppress legitimate scrutiny of public officials, since terms like "matters of public concern" are not precisely defined and could invite disputes over what reporting qualifies for the exception. They contend that requiring platforms and government agencies to remove information within 72 hours under threat of lawsuits creates compliance burdens and litigation risk that may lead cautious platforms to over-remove information even when it is legitimately newsworthy.
Constitutional context
The bill's restrictions on publishing or selling personal information about public officials implicate the First Amendment, particularly the framework from Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) and Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) governing restrictions on publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information of public concern; the news-reporting exception is designed to mitigate this exposure but the boundary between "public concern" and prohibited disclosure remains a live line-drawing question.
Checks and balances
Congress and its officers (Sergeant at Arms, Secretary of the Senate, Chief Administrative Officer) gain administrative authority to implement removal requests, while enforcement against data brokers rests with the Attorney General and state attorneys general, and courts serve as the check through injunctive/declaratory relief actions and potential First Amendment challenges.
Historical precedent
Similar "doxing" protections for judges were enacted in the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022, which restricted publication of federal judges' personal information following threats against judicial officials.