House Divided Over Surveillance Authority

Republican lawmakers (at least temporarily) tank an effort to reauthorize a key national security tool.

By and
197

Happy Thursday! A new study found people who wear glasses earn slightly more than people who don’t. It should come as no surprise that your TMD editors are delighted by this news. 

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • An Israeli airstrike in Gaza City killed three sons of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Wednesday. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed the strike on the individuals they described as operatives in the terrorist organization. Hamas claimed four of Haniyeh’s grandchildren were also killed in the strike, which the IDF did not confirm.
  • During a state visit by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Wednesday, President Joe Biden and his Japanese counterpart announced deepened cooperation across several areas, including the creation of a joint military command structure in Japan and a plan to work with Australia to build out coordinated missile and air defenses in the region. Biden also said Japanese astronauts will join NASA’s Artemis missions, which would make the Japanese astronauts the first non-Americans to set foot on the moon. Later today, Biden and Kishida will meet with Filipino President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos to discuss Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.
  • Exit polls showed the South Korean opposition, the Democratic Party, had clinched a decisive victory over President Yoon Suk Yeol’s conservatives in national parliamentary elections on Wednesday. Yoon—who was elected in 2022 for a five-year term—has aligned the country with the United States and pursued closer ties with Japan. The opposition and an allied party, which appear to have captured a combined 175 seats in the 300-seat National Assembly, campaigned on stalling Yoon’s pro-business domestic agenda. 
  • The Consumer Price Index rose 0.4 percent month-over-month and 3.5 percent annually in March, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday, up from 3.2 percent year-over-year growth in February and exceeding economists’ expectations. Stripped of more volatile food and energy prices, inflation rose 3.8 percent year-over-year. The hotter-than-anticipated data will likely keep the Federal Reserve from cutting rates when it meets at the end of this month, and possibly longer.
  • A New York appeals court on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump’s third attempt in recent days to delay his criminal trial related to hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, which is set to begin on Monday. Meanwhile, former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg was sentenced to five months in prison for lying under oath during testimony related to the New York civil fraud case against Trump and his business associates. Weisselberg previously served five months for tax fraud he committed while at the Trump Organization.
  • Speaking to reporters in Atlanta on Wednesday, Trump said that he would not sign a national abortion ban as president if federal legislation passed Congress and reached his desk. He also said the law that will soon go into effect in Arizona—which bans all abortions in the state with the exception of those necessary to save the life of the mother—went “too far” and will “be straightened out,” and predicted that the six-week restriction signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year would be rolled back by voters in November. “Florida’s probably going to change. Arizona’s going to definitely change,” Trump said. “Everybody wants that to happen. And you’re getting the will of the people.”

Section 702 Reauthorization Falters

House Speaker Mike Johnson holds a press conference following a House GOP conference meeting at the U.S Capitol on April 10, 2024. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
House Speaker Mike Johnson holds a press conference following a House GOP conference meeting at the U.S Capitol on April 10, 2024. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

In January 2018, then-President Donald Trump was doing what he often did in those days: tweeting. The House of Representatives, meanwhile, was preparing to reauthorize a key surveillance authority used by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the White House’s blessing—or, so they thought.

At 7:33 a.m. on January 11, 2018—just as the hosts of “Fox & Friends” happened to be discussing the effort to re-up Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—Trump fired off a tweet. “‘House votes on controversial FISA ACT today,’” he wrote, quoting a Fox News chyron. “This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?” As it happened, that was exactly what “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy was wondering aloud on air at about that time! 

As our very own Steve Hayes reported at the time for The Weekly Standard, Trump’s cable news-inspired pivot from the position his administration had held only hours before briefly put the reauthorization in doubt, although the president sent a follow-up tweet clarifying his support for reauthorization and the bill passed the House later that day. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
197
By and
Comments (197)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Hartzlk

    LUK: They should Fund Ukraine Now.

    Collapse
  2. JG

    The constitution rules supreme and they have no right to violate it through fear mongering. I will, however, mention that maybe, just maybe, if we did a better job controlling who we let in our country we wouldn't have to worry so much about foreign terrorists attacking us from within.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tyler

    It seems like criminal penalties for misuse would be a reasonable compromise on §702. Part of the issue here is that the FBI, etc. can pinky swear that they won't do anything wrong, but when they inevitably do get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, there's never any consequence to the people who behaved badly, so it just keeps happening. There really is no reason to trust these agencies, and it's sad that the left has lost its historical skepticism because their entire policy positions come down to "if Trump is against it then we're for it" these days.

    An FBI lawyer blatantly lied to the FISA court during one of the Trump probes (he intentionally added the word "not" to an email written by someone else, completely inverting the meaning in an attempt to "get" Carter Page¹) and got away scot-free. No jail time---nothing---for absolutely atrocious behavior. Unless there is some desire to hold people accountable for breaking these pinky-swear promises, then I think it's completely reasonable to expect legislators to be skeptical of promises.

    ¹Admittedly a messed-up dude, but that doesn't justify perjury.

    Collapse
  4. Kmsinatra

    Does anyone have experience with 702? I do, and find the reporting from all sources wholly inaccurate. I can't decide if they are using politicians for sources and not actual analysts that do the intelligence work or if it has changed in the last 4 years since I have been in the IC.

    Collapse
    1. Kbg

      +1

      Collapse
  5. Bi813

    If Trump is against it, it must be a good idea.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      It’s that sort of thinking that is killing us.

      Collapse
      1. Bi813

        Sadly--only too true.

        Collapse
  6. Kbg

    LUK: Reasonable people can differ on renewal, but the impact of all or none is real.

    If you have the responsibility of trying to protect citizens, rightly, you want all the tools you can get. We all give far more to Google, Apple, Microsoft and the large cellular companies willingly everyday than is likely to even be in a government database. That's reality/fact. So on one level the whole thing is a silly argument to me. From a practical standpoint, does it really matter that some search abuses occur in exchange for a better ability to protect from a repeat of a 9/11 event? That one's not even hard for me. I'll put up with someone doing a search on me even illegally vs. a twin tower collapsing. As mom used to say, if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about. If you've never done it, you should read the 9/11 Commission report.

    What DOES matter is what is done with that information in terms of follow on actions...and in that case, I think the law should be harsh and the penalties stiff when illegal abuse occurs.

    We have way too much all or nothing in our politics today...this issue should be decided by consensus in a way that does its best, though imperfectly as it will be, to balance the 4th Amendment and protecting us all.

    Collapse
    1. Slowdave1

      Apple and google can't put you in jail or seize your assets. In addition, one bad "decision" (allowing google et al. to have WAY too much of our information) is not justification for making another bad decision.

      Yes I'm doing nothing wrong. But this country is based on freedom, not surveillance. Are you for unwarranted searches of your house too? I mean, you've got nothing to hide, right? And the right to unwarranted searches would probably be EXTRMELY helpful in the fight against terrorism. But I don't want to trade extremist terrorism for government terrorism. We have a right to not having the government reading/listening to our private communications. This is not Stalin's USSR.

      Collapse
      1. Kbg

        Think bout this Slowdave1…how much communication goes on in a day? As mentioned, I’m all for hammering abuses. Go reread my post. In 2022 Google alone said there were 231 million emails sent per minute…now throw in social media posts, video etc. all on that same scale. It’s a big data ocean out there SD…odds are if the feds are looking at your comms, there’s a reason.

        Collapse
      2. Slowdave1

        Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

        Collapse
  7. Morah Nechamah

    I am concerned somewhat by partisan, party, and other obnoxious and noxious abuses, but ultimately, I do believe and think that we need all the intel we can obtain, about foreign AND domestic terrorist, enemies, etc., and if it means getting intel on innocent people, so be it.

    Enemies are advancing techniques and attacks in so many ways, infiltrating and planning. We must be prepared, on guard, and preferably able to strike back with even more force than detected. We have suffered greatly from too little intel, and to me it is part of national security, defense, and preparedness, to have this section authorized. Let bipartisan committees work on other aspects to prevent innocent people from being bothered, but safety and security come first.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    I ‘be tried to keep up with the proposed reforms, and this essay and comments are thought-provoking.
    In the Dark Ages, I worked in “The Spook World,” and many actions were taken that “protect first, explain after.” That led to reforms and all the changes, fragmentation, and turf wars that gave us 9-11.
    There is no perfect. But at a time of increasingly sophistication in “spy craft” with technology, it doesn’t seem prudent to me to remove or impede capability to find out what’s going on in and around the globe.

    Reauthorize. Doing so is not mutually exclusive from other changes. Less qualified immunity—which I support down to the dog catcher—maybe. Create a Gang of 4-6 bipartisanship from the Intel Committees to do closer monitoring —work on Fridays!—and let them see what reforms are needed.

    Collapse
  9. Bubba

    Having “accidentally” surveilled Americans, they want permission to deliberately search the database for American surveillance.

    This is transparent nonsense.

    Collapse
    1. Slowdave1

      Yes, the argument by Wray that "not having this right would mean actively ignoring helpful information that we already have in our datsbases!"

      That's also an argument for not having it in your databases.

      Step 1: yes we may incidentally collect some info in US citizens residing in the US, but we would never use that information.

      Step 2: you expect us to just IGNORE information we have that could help us prevent crimes??

      It is indeed a slippery slope.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Trudius24283

    LUK: Reauthorize it. The part that needs reform is the FISA courts, which is separate from the Section 702 bill.

    Collapse
Load More