A joint resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Temporary Amendment Act of 2026.

119th Congress Introduced by Ted Budd and 5 co-sponsors

Disapproves DC Council’s temporary body-worn camera use-of-force transparency amendment, blocking its implementation and keeping the prior policy stance.

Introduced in Senate

Summary of SJRES 194 (Session 119)

Purpose and intent

SJRES 194 is a joint resolution disapproving a specific action taken by the District of Columbia Council.

The resolution targets the District of Columbia Council’s approval of the Body-Worn Camera Transparency for Use of Force Temporary Amendment Act of 2026.

In short, the sponsors seek to nullify or overturn the District’s approval of this particular temporary amendment related to body-worn camera (BWC) use-of-force transparency requirements.

Key provisions and changes proposed

The bill does not enact new district-level policies. Rather, it disapproves the District of Columbia Council’s action to adopt a temporary amendment to its local law.

By disapproving the council’s action, the resolution would prevent the District from implementing or enforcing the specific temporary amendment regarding body-worn camera transparency and use-of-force reporting as described in the act it targeted.

If enacted, the disapproval would effectively veto the District’s temporary amendment, restoring or maintaining the status quo prior to the council’s action on the measure.

Who/what would be affected

District of Columbia government and law enforcement agencies: affected to the extent that the temporary amendment would have governed BWC transparency and use-of-force reporting requirements.

Members and officers of the DC Council: their action to approve the temporary amendment is the subject of disapproval.

General public and oversight stakeholders: potential changes in transparency and data reporting related to use-of-force incidents and body-worn camera data handling, depending on how the temporary amendment would have been implemented.

Procedural and timeline aspects

Introduced in the Senate and read twice.

Referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (as of the action history).

Sponsors include notable Republican members (co-sponsors): Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Ted Budd, Cynthia Lummis, Pete Ricketts, and Bill Hagerty.

No date provided for a floor vote or final passage beyond the referral status; the action history indicates a typical legislative process step following introduction.

Additional context

The bill is a federal expression of disapproval regarding a local D.C. ordinance action. It reflects federal concern or intervention over local use-of-force transparency policies and BWC data practices.

As a disapproval resolution, its effect would be procedural at the federal level, potentially blocking or overturning the District’s temporary amendment, depending on how the resolution is framed and enacted.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to emphasize potential policy implications, fiscal considerations, or compare with related federal-state/local oversight mechanisms.