On April 16, 2026, the House passed H.R. 8322 by unanimous consent, extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s Title VII authorities—including Section 702—through April 30. It was a short-term extension, not passage of the longer reauthorization bill the House was considering. Later votes and proposals were separate measures with different outcomes.
What the House passed on April 16
H.R. 8322 extended Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) through April 30, 2026. The House approved it by unanimous consent after a procedural vote tied to consideration of the longer H.R. 8035 failed.
That procedural vote was 211–210 on ordering the previous question. It was not a vote to pass H.R. 8035. The distinction matters: H.R. 8322 was the measure that passed on April 16, and it bought only a short period before the authorities’ scheduled expiration.
How the 2026 measures differed
| Measure | What it proposed | House outcome and status established by the available records |
|---|---|---|
| H.R. 8322, April 16 | Short extension of Title VII through April 30, 2026. | Passed by unanimous consent. |
| Revised H.R. 8035, April 29 | Three-year Section 702 renewal with privacy-related provisions and an anti-central-bank-digital-currency provision. | Passed the House 235–191. Roll Call reported uncertain Senate prospects; the available records do not establish enactment. |
| H.R. 9115, introduced June 3 | Proposed extending the authorities to June 12, 2029, with additional warrant and oversight language. | Introduced and referred to committees. The bill text does not establish that it became law. |
| H.R. 9238, June 11 | A short extension of the authorities. | Failed in the House, 198–218, with 15 members not voting. |
The April 29 H.R. 8035 vote was a separate action on a revised bill, not an extension of H.R. 8322. The Senate outlook reported at the time was uncertain.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
What Section 702 authorizes
Section 702 is part of FISA Title VII. It allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect communications of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States without obtaining an individualized warrant for each target. Americans and other people in the United States are not lawful direct targets under Section 702, but their communications can be incidentally collected when they communicate with foreign targets.
A central privacy dispute concerns what happens after collection: agencies may query collected data for information about a U.S. person, subject to applicable rules and oversight. That is different from directly targeting that person under Section 702, but it is one reason the law’s query practices and safeguards have been debated.
What safeguards were already in place
The 2024 Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA) changed Section 702 before the 2026 debates. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s April 2026 overview describes more stringent requirements for certain FBI queries, expanded training and reporting requirements, new disciplinary rules for noncompliance, and mandatory amici—independent legal advisers—in Section 702 certification proceedings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. RISAA also expanded some definitions and uses, including the definition of an electronic communications service provider.
Those were enacted 2024 changes. They should not be confused with additional safeguards debated or proposed in 2026, including provisions in the revised H.R. 8035 and introduced H.R. 9115.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesWhat happened when the next extension effort failed
On June 11, the House rejected H.R. 9238, a short extension, 198–218, with 15 members not voting. The next day, the Associated Press reported that the statutory authority was set to expire. It also reported that an existing court certification was expected to allow collection to continue in the short term, so a statutory lapse did not necessarily mean an immediate halt to collection.
That distinction is between statutory authorization and the operational effect of an existing court certification. The cited June reporting describes the immediate expectation at that time; it does not establish the longer-term legal or operational consequences of a lapse.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What can be said about the later status
The records and reporting summarized here establish the April and June 2026 actions, but do not establish what Congress did after June. They therefore do not settle the authorities’ status on October 8, 2026. A later enactment, extension, or other development should not be inferred from the failed June vote or from the introduced text of H.R. 9115.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
