Us Congress House Bill HB3245

Us Congress 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/7/25
• Refer: 5/7/25

Caption

American Privacy Restoration Act

Impact

The repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as proposed in HB 3245 could lead to substantial changes in federal law surrounding surveillance and counter-terrorism measures. Various provisions that currently allow for broad surveillance practices—often perceived as infringing upon privacy rights—would be eliminated. This change is likely to result in enhanced privacy protections for individuals, limiting the government's ability to conduct surveillance without warrants and ensuring that citizens can feel secure in their personal information and activities. Organizations advocating for civil liberties have viewed this move as a crucial step towards addressing the overreach that has become normalized since the act's passage in the wake of 9/11.

Summary

House Bill 3245, titled the 'American Privacy Restoration Act', proposes the complete repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act, marking a significant shift in the United States' approach to surveillance and civil liberties. This bill is introduced in response to long-standing concerns regarding the impact of the PATRIOT Act on personal privacy and the balance between national security and individual rights. By repealing the act, the bill aims to restore and strengthen protections against government surveillance and to reaffirm the constitutional rights of citizens in the context of modern security measures.

Contention

Debate surrounding HB 3245 is expected to be polarized. Proponents argue that the USA PATRIOT Act eroded civil liberties and failed to show conclusive evidence of increased security. They believe that repealing the act would restore necessary constraints on government power and bring the country's approach to privacy in line with the demand for accountability and transparency. Conversely, opponents of the bill may raise concerns regarding the potential implications for national security and counter-terrorism efforts. They could argue that the act provides essential tools to law enforcement in preventing threats, thus framing the repeal as a risk to public safety.