What the US government dubbed as the “Crypto Week” yielded in the House passing the first federal legislation to regulate stablecoins. As it has been previously approved by the Senate, it comes into effect the moment the president signs it.
Two additional crypto-related bills also passed in the House and will now proceed to the Senate.
This is a major win for the crypto industry, which poured millions into last year’s election, supporting candidates, including Donald Trump, who became a major advocate for cryptocurrency investments.
The House had three crypto-related bills to pass this “Crypto Week”. However, the bills were stalled for more than a day due to disagreements among House Republicans over how to combine the legislation.
Ultimately, GOP leaders put the three bills up for separate votes. One of the three bills, legislation to regulate a type of cryptocurrency called stablecoins, had already passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support and will now head to Trump’s desk.
The other two bills — a broader measure to create a new market structure for cryptocurrency and a bill to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a new digital currency — will be considered by the Senate later.
How stablecoin is being regulated in the US
The stablecoin bill, called the “Genius Act”, sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for the cryptocurrency, with reserve requirements, audits, and compliance.
Stablecoins are digital tokens tied to a stable asset, often the US dollar, to reduce price volatility.
“Around the world, payment systems are undergoing a revolution,” said House Financial Services Chair French Hill of Arkansas as lawmakers debated the stablecoin legislation Thursday morning. Hill said the bill will “ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers.”
The stablecoin measure is seen by lawmakers and the industry as a step toward adding legitimacy and consumer trust to a rapidly growing sector. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in June that the legislation could help that currency “grow into a $3.7 trillion (€3.2tr) market by the end of the decade.”
The bill outlines requirements for stablecoin issuers, including compliance with US anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, and mandates that issuers hold reserves backing the cryptocurrency.
Without such a framework, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee warned in a statement, “consumers face risks like unstable reserves or unclear operations from stablecoin issuers.”
After the votes, House Republicans strongly urged the Senate to take up the second bill, which would create a new market structure for cryptocurrency.
That legislation aims to provide clarity for how digital assets are regulated. The bill defines what forms of cryptocurrency should be treated as commodities regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and which are securities policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In general, tokens associated with “mature” blockchains, like Bitcoin, will be considered commodities.
The third bill, passed in the House on a narrower 219-210 margin, prohibits the US from offering what is known as a “central bank digital currency,” which is a government-issued form of digital cash.
Why the US needs crypto regulation
The crypto industry has long complained that unclear laws have made it difficult to operate in the US and that the Biden administration attempted to regulate it through enforcement actions rather than transparent rulemaking.
Passing this bill has been a top priority for the industry, which has quickly become a major player in Washington, thanks to substantial campaign donations and lobbying efforts.
Patrick McHenry, the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee and now vice chair of the crypto firm Ondo Finance, said the legislation will have a “massive generational impact,” similar to the securities laws Congress passed in the 1930s that helped make Wall Street the centre of the financial world.
“These bills will make the United States the centre of the world for digital assets,” he said.
While the bill has significant bipartisan support, it has also faced pushback from Democrats who argue that the legislation should address Trump’s personal financial interests in the cryptocurrency space.
A provision in the stablecoin bill bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. But that prohibition does not extend to the president and his family.
According to Forbes, the president’s crypto holdings are worth more than any single real estate asset in his portfolio, an estimated $1 billion (€860 million).
The Republican president’s family holds a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that launched its own stablecoin, USD1.
Trump reported earning $57.35 million (€49.2 million) from token sales at World Liberty Financial in 2024, according to a public financial disclosure released in June.
Some Democrats also criticised the bill for creating what they see as an overly weak regulatory framework that could pose long-term financial risks. They have also raised concerns that the legislation opens the door for major corporations to issue their own private cryptocurrencies.
“If this bill passes, it will allow Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to issue their own money. The bill still permits Big Tech companies and other conglomerates to issue their own private currencies,” said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.
The display of might outside was unmistakable, as was the soft power inside the building.
President Donald J. Trump signed into law his nearly 900-page “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks and spending cuts, affecting millions of Medicaid recipients while growing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency by thousands of workers.
Now that the bill is in effect, it’s a good time to review what’s actually inside.
Times and Associated Press reporters broke down what the passage of the bill means for the country.
Tax cuts take center stage
The BBB contains roughly $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the Associated Press, and solidified the ones from Trump’s first term.
On the teeter-totter of benefits, the wealthiest families will enjoy an average of $12,000 in tax savings, while the poorest people will have to pay an additional $1,600 a year, on average, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid.
That analysis of the House version of the bill is is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
While temporarily adding new tax deductions on tips, overtime and auto loans, the bill also adds a $6,000 deduction for older adults making less than $75,000 a year.
The child tax credit is bumped from $2,000 to $2,200, though millions of lower income families will still be unable to get the full credit.
Caps for state and local tax deductions, known as SALT, will quadruple to $40,000 for five years, offering some benefits to residents of higher-taxed states like California.
Businesses will get a break because they will immediately be able to write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research, which some experts say will boost economic growth.
Deportations, a border wall and missile defense
Another $350 billion is being allocated for border and national security, which includes spending on the U.S.-Mexico border and 100,000 migrant detention beds.
ICE will receive funding to offer $10,000 signing bonuses to new employees, with the aim of hiring 10,000 officers and agents.
Immigrants will fund some of these projects by paying new or increased fees, including when they apply for asylum.
In total, the Department of Defense will receive roughly $1 billion in new funding for border security.
Another $25 billion is being set aside for the U.S. to develop its own Israel-type of Iron Dome missile defense system, called the “Golden Dome.”
Clean energy gets pummeled
Previous tax breaks meant to create incentives for wind and solar energy are being hacked dramatically.
One incentive that will soon disappear is the electric vehicle tax break of $7,500 for new vehicles and $4,000 for used ones.
That was supposed to initially expire in 2032. Instead, the credit sunsets on Sept. 30.
How is this being paid for?
Republicans are cutting back on Medicaid and food assistance programs for those below the poverty line.
Many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including those up to age 65, will now have to fulfill an 80-hour-a-month work requirement.
Medicaid patients will also have a new $35 co-payment to contend with.
About 71 million Americans use Medicaid, and 40 million benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as food stamps.
The CBO estimates that 11.8 million Americans will become uninsured by 2034, and 3 million more will not qualify for SNAP due to the changes.
WASHINGTON — Republicans muscled President Trump’s tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the bill to his desk by the GOP’s self-imposed deadline of July 4th.
At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations.
Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version 218-214.
Here’s what’s in the bill:
Tax cuts are the priority
Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump’s first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump’s first term.
It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There’s also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits.
It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit.
A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It’s a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years.
There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth.
The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House’s version.
Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome
The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump’s border and national security agenda, including for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.
Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year.
To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections.
For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security.
How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs
To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line .
Republicans argue they are trying to right-size the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse.
The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program’s work requirements.
There’s also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services.
More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.
Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments.
But the Senate bill temporarily delays the start date of that cost-sharing for states with the highest SNAP error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the nation at nearly 25%, according to Department of Agriculture data. Sen. Lisa Murkowsk (R-Alaska) had fought for the exception. She was a decisive vote in getting the bill through the Senate.
A ‘death sentence’ for clean energy?
Republicans are proposing to dramatically roll back tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fueled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. The tax breaks were a central component of President Biden’s 2022 landmark bill focused on addressing climate change and lowering health care costs.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) went so far as to call the GOP provisions a “death sentence for America’s wind and solar industries and an inevitable hike in utility bills.”
A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on Sept. 30 of this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.
Meanwhile, a tax credit for the production of critical materials will be expanded to include metallurgical coal used in steelmaking.
Trump savings accounts and so, so much more
A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities.
The bill creates a new children’s savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.
The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump’s long-sought “National Garden of American Heroes.”
There’s a new excise tax on university endowments and a new tax on remittances, or transfers of money that people in the U.S. send abroad. The tax is equal to 1% of the transfer.
A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated.
One provision bars for one year Medicaid payments to family planning providers that provide abortions, namely Planned Parenthood.
Another section expands the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a hard-fought provision from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for those impacted by nuclear development and testing.
Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for the exploration of Mars, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee.
Additionally, a provision would increase the nation’s debt limit, by $5 trillion, to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills.
Last-minute changes
The Senate overwhelmingly revolted against a proposal meant to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence. Republican governors across the country asked for the moratorium to be removed and the Senate voted to do so with a resounding 99-1 vote.
A provision was thrown in at the final hours that will provide $10 billion annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50 billion in total. The Senate bill had originally provided $25 billion for the program, but that number was upped to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that reduced Medicaid provider taxes would hurt rural hospitals.
The amended bill also stripped out a new tax on wind and solar projects that use a certain percentage of components from China.
What’s the final cost?
Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034.
Or not, depending on how one does the math.
Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already “current policy.” Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach.
Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said.
Democrats say this is “magic math” that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some nonpartisan groups worried about the country’s fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an “accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.”
Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.
Despite massive majority, Starmer could not get party fully behind signature legislation to pare down spending.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has won a key vote in Parliament on a signature plan to overhaul the country’s welfare system.
But the 335 to 260 House of Commons victory on Tuesday largely rang hollow, with Starmer forced to soften his promised cuts amid pushback from members of his own Labour Party, in what could represent a crisis for his leadership.
“Welfare reform, let’s be honest, is never easy, perhaps especially for Labour governments,” work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told Parliament on Tuesday, acknowledging the party infighting that had defined the debate.
Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic described the vote as a “victory in name only” for Starmer.
“His government was facing such a huge rebellion from his own Labour MPs that there was no chance that he could pass this bill in the form that it was originally laid out,” she said.
Starmer had ridden into office last year on the back of the largest parliamentary majority in UK history, currently holding 403 of 650 seats. That majority, he maintained, would help him avoid parliamentary dysfunction that had defined the body throughout years of Conservative rule.
But Starmer’s signature plan to trim down the UK’s ballooning welfare system soon ran into controversy, particularly when it came to disability benefits.
Starmer’s plan pitched raising the threshold for the benefits by requiring a higher threshold for physical or mental disability.
That prompted more than 120 Labour lawmakers to publicly say they would vote against the bill. They included Rachael Maskell, one of the leading opponents, who called the cuts “Dickensian” and said they “belong to a different era and a different party”.
In concessions to party members, the government backed down on implementing tougher eligibility rules for the payments until a wider review of the welfare system had been completed.
The government also pivoted to only have the reforms apply to future applicants, and not current claimants, as they initially sought.
While the government had at first hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9bn) a year by 2030, the savings under the new plan is estimated to be closer to 2 billion pounds.
“This is a huge blow to the authority of Keir Starmer,” Al Jazeera’s Veselinovic said, “a prime minister who came into power on the back of a massive electoral landslide, who is now unable to pass what his government called flagship legislation without stripping it of nearly all its meaning.”
Several years ago, little was known about the StingRay, a powerful surveillance device that imitates the function of a cell tower and captures the signals of nearby phones, allowing law enforcement officers to sweep through hundreds of messages, conversations and call logs.
The secrecy around the technology, which can ensnare the personal data of criminals and bystanders alike, spurred lawsuits and demands for public records to uncover who was using it and the extent of its capabilities. In California, a 2015 law requires law enforcement agencies to seek permission at public meetings to buy the devices, and post rules for their use online.
But a Los Angeles Times review of records from 20 of the state’s largest police and sheriff’s departments, plus the Alameda County district attorney’s office, found some agencies have been slow to follow or have ignored the law. Several that partner with federal agencies to work on cases are not subject to the law’s reporting requirements. The result is that little information on StingRay use is available to the public, making it hard to determine how wide a net the surveillance tools cast and what kind of data they gather.
Out of 21 law enforcement agencies surveyed, 12 were found to own or have access to a StingRay or similar device. Nine of those agencies had developed and released online public polices.
Department
Device
Policies
DepartmentLAPD
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentLong Beach Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentL.A. County Sheriff
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSan Diego Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSan Jose Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentFresno Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesNO
DepartmentSacramento Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSacramento County Sheriff
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentOakland Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesYES
DepartmentAlameda district attorney’s office
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
DepartmentSanta Ana Police
DeviceACCESS**
PoliciesNO
DepartmentAnaheim Police
DeviceOWN
PoliciesYES
**Officers don’t operate the stingray but work with other agencies that may
Source: L.A. Times review of public records
The Times reviewed more than 400 documents it received from public information requests, including grant proposals, purchase orders and memos on the use of StingRays and similar devices generically called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes.”
The devices, which cost between $242,000 and $500,000, are primarily marketed for preventing and responding to terrorist threats, but the documents suggest they are used most frequently in felony criminal cases, such as burglaries, murders and kidnappings.
Out of 21 law enforcement entities The Times surveyed, 12 either owned stingrays or used or had access to them through partner agencies. Nine owned the surveillance devices, and each of them posted public policies online as required by law. Three of the nine went a step further to conduct annual reporting audits that showed when and in what cases the devices were used.
But some stingray policies posted by the law enforcement agencies revealed little about the devices besides noting they were in use. Other agencies took months to post their stingray guidelines online. The Los Angeles Police Department, which owns a stingray, updated its public safety policies to include its stingray guidelines only after questions from The Times.
Data on stingray purchases and use have long been difficult to come by, a problem the 2015 law requiring more public accountability was meant to correct — and has yet to fix.
The Times found that the nine agencies that own stingrays bought them between 2006 and 2013, mostly with federal grant money or under programs or agreements that prohibited any public disclosure, following a national trend. Local tax dollars weren’t used on the purchases, and city and county officials didn’t ask about them in a public forum.
Just two of the 21 law enforcement agencies polled by The Times have ever publicly discussed buying new devices before city or county officials: Santa Clara (which did not buy a device) and Alameda counties.
And only one agency, the Oakland Police Department, has gathered input from the public to develop guidelines for stingray use, which isn’t required under the 2015 law.
“Any tool can be used for good or bad,” said Brian Hofer, chairman of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, which helped establish the surveillance policies. “This is the most controversial piece of equipment that we know about, and they should not be used in the dark.”
The StingRay II gives off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect. (Associated Press)
(Associated Press)
A device cloaked in secrecy
Stingrays tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic the function of cell towers. They give off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect.
Investigators can target the location data of specific phones, allowing them to track suspects and their associates. They can also sweep up communications over a wide area. How much and what types of data they collect — location information, audio or images — depends on how the devices are designed and how law enforcement agencies use them.
The technology has been used for about 20 years by federal, state and local law enforcement, often secretly, under manufacturer agreements that typically prohibit agencies from disclosing the purchases.
The public did not learn about the existence of the equipment until 2011, after an inmate in federal prison, Daniel Rigmaiden, spent three years scouring government records and meeting transcripts on a hunch that investigators used some kind of secret device to catch him.
Rigmaiden, a native of Seaside, Calif., who hadn’t had a stable living situation, was arrested in Phoenix for filing fake tax returns. Police were able to find him through tracking an old Verizon wireless card he seldom used to connect online.
“It wasn’t just that [investigators] were able to get historical call data from Verizon,” said Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in support of his case. “They were able to pinpoint him to a particular apartment in a particular apartment building, which was far more precise.”
In 2015, California lawmakers passed the sweeping Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which prohibited any investigative body in the state from forcing businesses to turn over digital communications without a warrant. That same year, state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced legislation to compel local law enforcement agencies to disclose more information about the use of stingrays in California.
“Our country has a rich history of democracy and civilian oversight,” Hill told a Senate judiciary committee that May. “The stealthy use of these devices undercuts the very nature of our government.”
The law, which took effect in January 2016, requires cities and counties that operate a stingray to create guidelines for how and when officers use the equipment. Any agency that wants to buy a device must first receive approval at a public hearing.
Investigators can target the data of specific phones. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
Opening access to information
The state law helped open up some public access to information about how and where the devices are used. Privacy advocates and lawyers have kept up the public pressure in some cities and counties, particularly in the Bay Area, calling on officials to put ordinances and guidelines in place to bar police from collecting data from those not under investigation.
Under most of those policies, officers can use the technology only when it is critical to a case and is approved by higher-ranking officers, or in emergency situations such as natural disasters. Investigators are also required to obtain search warrants. Any data not considered official evidence can’t be sought, recorded or stored. Officers must delete or destroy all information gathered by the equipment related to an investigation at the end of the period in which they’re authorized to use the technology.
Three agencies keep track of when officers use a stingray — the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the San Jose Police Department and the Alameda County district attorney’s office. But their data offer few details about the cases.
In Los Angeles County, a report from the sheriff’s office showed deputies followed state law and obtained a search warrant in nearly all 138 investigations that required a cell site simulator in 2015, and 38 investigations in 2016, the majority of which were murder cases.
In that time, the device helped officers arrest 70 suspects and find one crime victim. Sheriff’s Department officials declined to disclose further information or records on those cases.
Source: L.A. County Sheriff’s Office Ally Levine / @latimesgraphics Stingray use in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles County asked to use the surveillance equipment for investigations 138 times in 2015 and 38 times in 2016. In 2015 17 Narcotics 16 Assault 9 Robbery 6 Grand theft In 2016 Most common investigations using stingrays Murder 63 Murder 21 Weapons 3 Attempted murder 2 2 Rape 2 Assault* *with a deadly weapon
The Alameda County district attorney’s office, which purchased a device to be operated by the Sheriff’s Department and other area police agencies, said the stingray had not been used as of January.
The San Jose Police Department bought a $500,000 stingray in June 2013, and used it about 20 times between early September 2016 and June 2017.
Law enforcement officers in Oakland and San Jose, as well as several other California cities, say the law requiring them to disclose use of the devices has allowed them to ease community fears over what the technology can and can’t do.
“You watch TV and you’d think that we are sucking their phones dry of all the images, of all the texts, of all the pictures and emails,” said San Jose Police Lt. Steve Lagorio, who crafted guidelines for stingray use with the city attorney’s office. “But we are not. We don’t have that capability.”
The cellphone interceptor at his department is strictly used to target the phones of individual suspects, and Lagorio said he doubted any local law enforcement agencies used the equipment to do much more than that.
A traditional cellphone tower. Cell tower interceptors, often called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes,” tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic traditional cell towers. (Jeff Roberson / Associated Press)
(Jeff Roberson / AP)
Calls for oversight
Privacy advocates and lawyers say a state agency is needed for oversight to ensure law enforcement agencies are following the law and post their own guidelines.
Most of the records on purchases and grant proposals reviewed by The Times were highly redacted, providing little insight into how their equipment is designed and what it can collect.
The LAPD provided purchase orders and invoices that show the department first obtained price quotes for stingray equipment in 2004, but it is unclear when it acquired the technology. LAPD officials said only that the stingray was not deployed due to technical malfunction issues, but declined to elaborate.
Other records from the Police Department show it obtained another stingray in June 2012, but the department declined to release additional information on the purchase, including its cost.
It was used more than 21 times in routine criminal investigations over four months in 2012, according to LAPD records that were first obtained by the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that works to advance free speech and open-records laws.
In response to an information request regarding its purchases of stingray devices, the San Francisco Police Department provided heavily redacted records, including a 2012 grant proposal and shipping receipt showing the purchase of “specialized surveillance equipment” in 2007.
The department also gave The Times a document indicating a stingray was bought with 2009 federal grant funds. But a spokesman said the department did not have any public policies on the technology because the equipment was not in use.
Seventeen of the 21 agencies polled by The Times said they did not keep or declined to provide data on how often and in what types of cases they used stingrays.
Privacy advocates point to a loophole in the law that allows some law enforcement agencies to avoid reporting their use of the devices. Police departments that partner with another agency that owns and uses a stingray in an investigation are not required to publish their own guidelines for using the equipment.
The Santa Ana and Fresno police departments, for example, said they did not have any records on the use and policies of surveillance devices. But both departments acknowledge they work with agencies that do have them, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, and might have indirect access to the data they produce.
“Our officers don’t use the equipment, but we often look for fugitive hunters,” Santa Ana Police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said. “Anaheim [police] may have one, the U.S. Marshals may have one.… They do help us catch fugitives, but whether they have one — you’d have to ask them.”
A new proposal by state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), left, would expand the state’s transparency laws on StingRays and extend it to all surveillance devices. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
(Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Increasing transparency
This legislative session, a new proposal by Sen. Hill would expand the state’s disclosure law on stingrays to all surveillance devices, including facial recognition software, drones and social media monitors.
Senate Bill 21 would require law enforcement agencies to disclose not only the use of the surveillance equipment, but the use of any information obtained from the devices.
Civil rights lawyers and advocates have supported the measure, saying transparency is necessary at a time when concerns over surveillance of immigrant and Muslim communities have risen under the Trump administration.
The legislation was narrowly approved by the state Senate, with heavy opposition from law enforcement officials who argued it would give criminals a road map to police agencies’ crime-fighting technology.
Its prospects of passage in the Legislature are unclear. Hill says he understands the technology has many benefits for law enforcement.
“[But] we need people — we need agencies — to be accountable, and we need civilian bodies to create that accountability standard,” he said.
—————————
FOR THE RECORD
6:31 a.m.: This article reported incorrectly that Daniel Rigmaiden was arrested in Phoenix. He was arrested in Santa Clara.
