Donald Trump is demanding House Republicans pass a straight renewal of Section 702, the surveillance law that expires next week, without any modifications. The push has exposed a rare fault line in Congress, where privacy hawks from the far right and progressive left are battling bipartisan leadership determined to extend the program unchanged.
The controversy centers on a 16-year-old statute that lets federal intelligence agencies monitor text messages and emails involving foreigners abroad, without a warrant. If an American happens to be communicating with a foreign target overseas, their messages get swept up in the collection anyway. The law operates under a judicial certification process that can continue through March 2027 even if Congress fails to reauthorize it this month, but lawmakers are moving to settle the question now.
Trump reversed course spectacularly on the issue this week. Two years ago, he called for the law to be killed after claiming the FBI weaponized it against his 2016 campaign. Now he is calling it "an effective tool to keep Americans safe" and "extremely important to our military." The CIA credits the program with preventing a terror attack at a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna and rescuing hostages.
House Speaker Mike Johnson scheduled a procedural vote for Wednesday to clear the path for an 18-month extension with no changes. The rules committee approved it Tuesday night, but Johnson canceled the floor vote the next day after pushback from Republicans troubled by warrantless monitoring of Americans. The drama underscores how divided the GOP has become on the surveillance question, even as Trump leans on members to unify behind his position.
"I am asking Republicans to UNIFY," Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday.
The most significant wrinkle in Congress came two years ago when lawmakers last reauthorized Section 702. A bipartisan group pushed an amendment requiring warrants when federal agents search Americans' "incidentally collected" communications. The vote ended in a 212-212 tie and failed. Congress instead passed modest reforms, including limits on queries and mandatory audits.
Republican holdouts this time include Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who has made clear her position: "Warrants or bust." Rep. Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, once voted against the 2024 extension and wrote that without warrant requirements, surveillance "will always be subject to abuse." Last month, he reversed course and now backs Trump's clean extension.
Some Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, voted to renew Section 702 two years ago. He now opposes any extension without reforms, arguing the safeguards installed in 2024 have been "badly eroded by the Trump Administration."
Civil liberties groups paint a darker picture. The FBI made 7,413 queries about Americans under Section 702 last year, down from prior peaks but potentially understated because of how agents use filtering tools. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court itself found in 2022 that FBI compliance problems with Section 702 procedures were "persistent and widespread."
FBI agents have used the law to search communications of protesters, members of Congress, judges, journalists, and political commentators. Hannah James, counsel at the Brennan Center's liberty and national security program, notes the statute was designed to surveil foreigners but has become a tool "to spy on Americans without a warrant."
Intelligence officials counter that adding a warrant requirement would be too burdensome and could slow time-sensitive operations. The Fisa court already provides judicial oversight through its certification process, they argue.
Trump's surveillance footprint appears to be widening beyond Section 702. The FBI announced last month it had resumed purchasing sensitive location data, a tactic that sidesteps warrant requirements. Trump also fired three Democrats from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the independent agency meant to scrutinize surveillance for abuse.
Travis LeBlanc, one of those fired board members, expressed concern that data collected under Section 702 may be "shared more broadly across the government than we may know" and for purposes beyond counterterrorism. He worries the Trump administration is defining terrorism loosely enough to justify surveillance of protesters and immigrants.
India McKinney, federal affairs director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the 212-212 tie on the warrant amendment two years ago proved "there is clearly the political will to work on this." But she added, "the leadership is just not there." She called a clean extension without debate "abdicating your responsibility" to voters.
Xiaoxing Xi, a Temple University physics professor, knows the cost of surveillance without warrants firsthand. The Justice Department ordered his surveillance under Section 702 in 2015, accusing him of wire fraud and sharing technology with Chinese scientists. Agents arrested him in handcuffs. The charges were dropped four months later, but the damage was done.
"This is not a joke. It's not a game," Xi said. "They turned the lives of my family upside down. If they want to surveil an American citizen, they should at least get a warrant."
Author James Rodriguez: "The political realignment here is stark. Trump's whiplash on FISA, combined with Democrats suddenly worried about civil liberties and Republicans cracking on surveillance, suggests the old consensus around warrantless monitoring is finally cracking. Whether that pressure is enough to force real reform remains the question."
Comments