PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10309 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10309 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10309 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10309 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-08 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposal would limit U.S. recognition and enforcement of foreign censorship measures against “United States persons,” using U.S. constitutional protections as a test. It would restrict government assistance and extradition for protected conduct, and let affected persons challenge certain foreign judgments in federal court and seek relief, including $25,000 in statutory damages. It would also require federal reporting and a database of foreign censorship efforts. The supplied record establishes introduction and committee referral, not enactment.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order entered pursuant to a foreign censorship law on a United States person unless the domestic court determines that the conduct for which the foreign judgment order was imposed would not have been protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred within the United States.
No officer or employee of the United States or of any State or unit of local government may assist a foreign government in investigating or enforcing a foreign censorship law against a United States person, if the applicable conduct would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred in the United States.
a United States person may not be extradited from the United States to a foreign country in connection with the violation of a foreign censorship law for conduct that would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred within the United States.
Notwithstanding chapter 97, any United States person against whom a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) is entered may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking a declaratory judgment that such foreign judgment or order is unenforceable under subsection (a), injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, and statutory damages in the amount of $25,000.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit an annual report
The Federal Trade Commission shall establish and maintain a database that includes instances of speech that occurred within the United States and is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that have been censored or targeted for censorship under foreign laws
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-23T13:35:51Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
Section 1 would give the proposal the short title “HOMEFRONT Act of 2026.”
This Act may be cited as the Halting Overseas Mandates from Extraterritorially Reaching Onto National Territory Act of 2026 or the HOMEFRONT Act of 2026.
Section 2 would add a new section 4106 to chapter 181 of title 28 of the United States Code and update the chapter’s table of sections.
Chapter 181 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 4106. Limitation on recognition and enforcement of foreign censorship laws
The table of sections for chapter 181 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 4106. Limitation on recognition and enforcement of foreign censorship laws.
The proposal defines a “foreign censorship law” by whether it imposes liability for conduct that would be protected by the First Amendment if it occurred in the United States. The listed subjects include online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, harmful content, and compelled disclosure of user information; the constitutional-protection condition remains part of the definition.
The term foreign censorship law means a law of a foreign country that imposes liability for conduct that would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if the conduct occurred in the United States, including restrictions related to online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, harmful content, compelled disclosure of user information, and other similar restrictions.
Covered foreign judgments and orders would include subpoenas, administrative actions, demands, fines, and similar measures issued by a foreign court. The definition also incorporates an existing statutory definition that is not reproduced in the supplied sources.
The term foreign judgment or order has the meaning given such term in section 4101 and includes a subpoena, an order, an administrative action, a demand, a fine, and any other similar measure issued by a foreign court.
A U.S. court could recognize or enforce a covered foreign judgment or order against a United States person only if it determined that the underlying conduct would lack First Amendment protection had it occurred here. This restriction would override conflicting federal or state law. The party seeking recognition or enforcement would have to establish that condition.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order entered pursuant to a foreign censorship law on a United States person unless the domestic court determines that the conduct for which the foreign judgment order was imposed would not have been protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred within the United States.
The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment or order shall bear the burden of making the showings required under paragraph (1).
A separate condition would require the foreign court’s authority over the person—called personal jurisdiction—to meet the constitutional due-process requirements imposed on U.S. courts. The party seeking recognition or enforcement would have to establish this as well.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.
The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment or order shall bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.
For providers of “interactive computer services” as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act, recognition or enforcement would also require consistency with section 230, assuming the information had been provided in the United States. The party seeking recognition or enforcement would bear that burden. The supplied text does not reproduce section 230’s definition or substantive rules, so the precise reach of this additional condition cannot be established from these sources alone.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), unless the domestic court determines that the judgment or order would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject of such judgment or order had been provided in the United States.
The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment or order shall bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with such section 230.
An appearance in the foreign court proceeding would not take away a party’s right to oppose U.S. recognition or enforcement under this section, or waive jurisdictional claims.
An appearance by a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment or order to which this section applies shall not deprive such party of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the judgment or order under this section, or represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims.
Federal, state, and local government officers and employees would be barred from helping a foreign government investigate or enforce a foreign censorship law against a United States person when the conduct would receive First Amendment protection if it occurred here.
No officer or employee of the United States or of any State or unit of local government may assist a foreign government in investigating or enforcing a foreign censorship law against a United States person, if the applicable conduct would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred in the United States.
A United States person could not be extradited from the United States to a foreign country in connection with violating a foreign censorship law for conduct that would receive First Amendment protection here. The proposed prohibition would apply despite other laws or U.S. treaty obligations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any treaty obligation of the United States, a United States person may not be extradited from the United States to a foreign country in connection with the violation of a foreign censorship law for conduct that would be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred within the United States.
A United States person against whom a covered foreign judgment or order is entered could sue in an appropriate federal district court. They could seek a declaration of unenforceability under subsection (a), injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees, and $25,000 in statutory damages. These would be remedies a person could request, not automatic awards. The provision expressly applies “Notwithstanding chapter 97,” but that chapter is absent from the supplied sources, preventing a full assessment of the interaction.
Notwithstanding chapter 97, any United States person against whom a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) is entered may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking a declaratory judgment that such foreign judgment or order is unenforceable under subsection (a), injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, and statutory damages in the amount of $25,000.
The Attorney General would consult the heads of other appropriate federal agencies and report annually to the chairs and ranking members of four congressional committees: the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit an annual report to the Chair and Ranking Member of the appropriate congressional committees
The term appropriate congressional committees means the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
The report would address foreign censorship affecting United States persons, compliance costs and penalties, whether maintaining relevant international arrangements remains in the U.S. interest, and recommendations for further measures. The first reporting item refers to speech rights and the ability to conduct business, but its wording leaves their precise relationship unclear. The report would be publicly available to the extent feasible, with necessary redactions. This reporting requirement does not itself establish that particular costs or effects have occurred.
(A) Instances of foreign censorship laws affecting the speech rights of the ability to conduct business of United States persons. (B) The costs imposed upon United States persons to comply with, or the penalties imposed by foreign entities pursuant to, foreign censorship efforts aimed at constitutionally protected speech. (C) Whether any agreements, treaties, or other cooperative arrangements between the United States and foreign entities that engage in efforts to censor constitutionally protected speech are still in the interests of the United States to maintain. (D) Recommendations for additional measures to counter foreign censorship efforts affecting the speech of United States persons.
The report shall, to the extent feasible be made publicly available, with necessary redactions.
The Federal Trade Commission would have to establish and maintain a database of speech that occurred in the United States, is protected by the First Amendment, and was censored or targeted for censorship under foreign laws. The database would exclude proprietary company data and obscene information or images.
The Federal Trade Commission shall establish and maintain a database that includes instances of speech that occurred within the United States and is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that have been censored or targeted for censorship under foreign laws, except that such database shall exclude proprietary company data and information or images that are obscene.
If a provision of the new section, or its application in a particular situation, were held unconstitutional, the proposal directs that the remainder and its other applications remain unaffected. This is a severability clause; it does not establish how a court would rule.
If any provision of this section or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this section, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 23, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 8, 2026. It does not establish what happened after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-23T13:35:51Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-08. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status and the contents of other versions or accompanying materials cannot be established from the supplied sources.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The complete supplied introduced text contains an additional protection for a defined class within the bill’s main policy. Classification identifies differential treatment for scrutiny, not a judgment about its justification.
Providers of interactive computer services would receive an additional condition against recognition or enforcement of covered foreign judgments or orders: the domestic court would have to determine consistency with section 230, assuming the information had been provided in the United States. The party seeking recognition or enforcement would bear that burden. This provider-specific protection supplements the bill’s general First Amendment and jurisdictional conditions and directly relates to its foreign-censorship policy. The supplied text does not reproduce section 230’s definition or substantive rules, so the precise scope and practical effect remain uncertain.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), unless the domestic court determines that the judgment or order would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject of such judgment or order had been provided in the United States.
The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment or order shall bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with such section 230.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order entered pursuant to a foreign censorship law on a United States person unless the domestic court determines that the conduct for which the foreign judgment order was imposed would not have been protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it occurred within the United States.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment or order described in subsection (a)(1) unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 23, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI