Surveillance: The Trump Administration's Silence on FISA Reform

Contents

The clock is ticking in the halls of Capitol Hill. By April 20, the US Congress must decide whether to extend, reform, or let expire one of the country's most controversial surveillance laws. It concerns Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This is one of the legal norms that were at the center of Edward Snowden's revelations. But while the debate over the privacy of US citizens is gaining momentum, President Donald Trump's administration is conspicuously absent.

At a crucial hearing of the Judiciary Committee this week, the seats for government representatives remained empty, reports The Intercept. The silence reportedly continued when the designated new NSA Director, Lieutenant General Joshua Rudd, evaded critical questions about FISA reform during his confirmation hearing on Thursday.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether he would support a judicial warrant in the future for searching databases for information on US citizens, Rudd only gave the Democrat a vague answer. He apologized, stating he needed to delve deeper into the matter. At the same time, the military official expressed his full confidence in NSA employees to always respect civil liberties.

Backdoor to Domestic Surveillance

The core of the conflict lies in the nature of "Section 702." Officially, the law permits intelligence agencies like the NSA and the FBI to monitor the communications of foreigners abroad without individual court orders. However, since the digital world knows no borders, vast amounts of data from US citizens inevitably end up in these systems.

Civil liberties advocates have been criticizing the so-called backdoor search for years: investigators can search these massive data mountains for information about US citizens without a judicial warrant. Such a procedure would be unconstitutional in traditional domestic investigations.

In 2021 alone, the FBI searched up to 3.4 million times for data based on Section 702, including to inspect the communications of US citizens. These surveillance measures are repeatedly subject to errors and exceeding authority.

The lines in Congress regarding the course of action run across party lines. In 2024, a bipartisan coalition narrowly failed by a single vote to enshrine a requirement for targeted search warrants in the law. Instead, Congress once again agreed only on an extension, which is now expiring. Since then, pressure has increased: a federal court recently ruled that the FBI violated a citizen's rights by querying his data in the 702 database without a judicial warrant.

Political Maneuvering and Internal Uncertainty

Trump's role in this year's discussion is particularly sensitive. In the past, he often railed against FISA. The Republican believes that provisions of the law were misused to surveil an advisor on his 2016 campaign. Nevertheless, his administration supported the extension without additional safeguards during his first term. According to experts like Jake Laperruque of the US civil liberties organization Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the current reticence could indicate internal disagreements. The White House and Republican leadership apparently need to agree on a position before seeking the public crossfire of lawmakers.

However, patience in Congress is running thin. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wants his committee to move forward. This must happen with or without a briefing from the government. Democrats like Chris Coons, meanwhile, find the lack of an official stance three months before the deadline "breathtaking."

Cloud Providers Must Release Data

A lot is at stake for the representatives and senators. In an election year, Democrats who previously voted for the law and are now being attacked by its opponents for lack of data protection, in particular, must justify themselves. At the same time, Republicans who voted for reforms under former President Joe Biden might revert to a tougher stance under Trump.

Section 702 is among the legal norms that allow US authorities to compel cloud providers to hand over data. The reach of US jurisdiction is broad: companies are obliged to hand over data even if it is stored outside the USA.

It is currently uncertain whether Congress will pass a genuine reform in the coming two months or postpone the problem through another short-term extension. One thing is clear: the digital legacy of the Snowden era is once again challenging Washington to make a fundamental decision about the balance between security and freedom.

(hag)