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.