Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 27, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 15, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
No Fly for Foreign Fighters Act
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress within one year on: (1) whether past weaknesses in the operation and administration of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) and its subsets (e.g., the No Fly list) have been addressed, and (2) the extent to which additional changes may address or mitigate existing vulnerabilities.
The study and report must include, with respect to the TSDB, information on: (1) timely integration of information, (2) increased demands for information, (3) accessibility to relevant agencies, and (4) identification of known or suspected terrorists by users.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4240 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.