hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Requires apps/websites to disclose foreign adversary ownership or data storage.
Ms. Cortez Masto (D-NV), Mr. Grassley (R-IA), Mr. Lujan (D-NM)
Introduced in Senate, awaiting committee action
This bill, called the Internet Application I.D. Act, requires websites and apps to tell users if they are owned by or store data in a foreign adversary country. It also requires disclosure if a foreign adversary has access to collected information. It was introduced by Senators Cortez Masto (D-NV), Grassley (R-IA), and Lujan (D-NM). Currently, it is in a Senate committee awaiting review before any potential vote.
Introduced Jan 12, 2026
The bill was introduced in the Senate on January 12, 2026, and then referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. For it to become law, the committee must approve it, then the full Senate would need to vote on it and pass it. If it passes the Senate, it would then need to pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the President.
If this bill passes, you would see clear notices on websites and mobile apps if they are owned by foreign adversary countries or if your information is stored in such countries. This transparency would allow you to make more informed choices about which online services to use. The law aims to give you more control over your digital privacy and security by ensuring you know who controls your data.
Supporters Say
Supporters believe this bill will inform users about potential foreign adversary influence over their online services and data.
Critics Say
No specific arguments against this bill's disclosure requirements are present in the provided text.
Supporters of the bill would likely emphasize user transparency and national security, ensuring that individuals are aware of who controls the digital services they use and where their data resides. As this bill focuses solely on disclosure requirements, specific critical arguments have not been highlighted in the legislative text itself, though some may raise concerns about the definition of 'foreign adversary' or potential implementation burdens.