S-1809-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 316.
Sponsored by Ashley Moody (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — the federal Espionage Act — to add "video" to the list of formats already prohibited for capturing or transmitting national defense information without authorization. Currently, the law covers photographs and photographic negatives; this bill would insert "video" alongside those terms wherever they appear in the statute. It would not create a new crime, but would extend an existing one to cover video recordings, including footage captured by drones or other devices.
Who benefits
The U.S. military and national security agencies, which would gain a clearer legal basis to prosecute unauthorized video surveillance of defense installations. Federal prosecutors, who currently face a potential gap in the law when charging cases involving drone or video-based surveillance of military sites. Communities near military bases, who may benefit from reduced foreign or unauthorized surveillance activity. Defense contractors and personnel whose facilities or operations could be targeted by video-based espionage.
Who is hurt
Journalists, documentary filmmakers, and news organizations that may film near or over military installations, who could face criminal exposure under a broader statute. Hobbyist drone operators and recreational pilots who inadvertently capture video of defense facilities. Civil liberties and press freedom advocates who argue the expansion could chill lawful newsgathering. Researchers and academics studying military infrastructure from publicly available imagery. Foreign nationals and domestic actors engaged in authorized or ambiguous video activity near defense sites who may face prosecution under an expanded law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Espionage Act's current language was written before video recording technology existed at scale, creating a legal gap that adversaries — particularly those using drones — can exploit to surveil military installations without clear criminal liability. They contend that foreign state-linked actors have been documented flying drones over U.S. military bases, including reported incidents near sensitive facilities, and that updating the statute to cover video is a straightforward modernization that closes a loophole without expanding the law's underlying scope or intent.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding "video" to the Espionage Act without defining its scope or adding intent safeguards could sweep in journalists, filmmakers, and drone hobbyists who inadvertently capture footage of defense facilities — activities that may be protected under the First Amendment. They contend that the bill's single-word insertion lacks any carve-out for newsgathering or public interest activity, and that existing laws — including drone no-fly zone regulations and trespassing statutes — already address the most serious threats without risking the criminalization of constitutionally protected expression.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment protects newsgathering and the press, and courts have recognized that laws broadly criminalizing recording near government facilities can raise free speech concerns. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted in Carpenter v. United States (2018), also reflects growing judicial attention to surveillance technology, though here the concern runs in the opposite direction — the bill restricts recording of government property rather than government collection of private data. The Espionage Act has historically survived First Amendment challenges, but its application to video recording of publicly visible military sites could raise new questions about the line between protected expression and criminal surveillance.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (DOJ and federal prosecutors) gains a clearer statutory tool to charge video-based espionage; checks include judicial review of prosecutions, the existing Espionage Act's intent and "national defense information" requirements, and potential First Amendment challenges brought by defendants.
Historical precedent
The Espionage Act of 1917 has been amended multiple times to account for new technologies and media formats, and courts have generally upheld its application to new forms of information transmission, though its intersection with First Amendment press protections remains an area of ongoing legal debate.