WASHINGTON — After weeks of bitter infighting, the House passed a renewal of the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 spy power for the duration of President Trump’s term.
But the measure is unlikely to clear the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has signaled plans to move forward with a 45-day extension due to members’ qualms with the House bill.
House lawmakers had voted 235-191 to re-up the controversial spy power, with 42 Democrats supporting and 22 Republicans opposing the measure.
The controversial warrantless surveillance authority expires at 11:59 p.m. Thursday. With the House set to break for a two-week recess at the end of Thursday, there is a risk that the surveillance authority could lapse.
Section 702 lets US intelligence agencies conduct warrantless surveillance on non-Americans. But the program also means that inevitably, the US government will collect phone calls, emails, text messages, and other data from Americans communicating with foreigners.
The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires a warrant for such intrusions, leading to heated politicial fights over safeguards every time the legislation comes up for renewal.
To appease GOP privacy hawks, the House bill included a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) ban, which has long been a priority of conservatives and libertarians due to fears of the government gaining too much knowledge of people’s finances and undermining the crypto industry.
Senate Democrats are largely dead-set against the CBDC ban. Due to the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate, Thune has called the House FISA renewal bill “dead on arrival.”
In 2024, 147 Dems were on board with renewing Section 702. On Wednesday, however, many cited concerns about President Trump to justify their opposition.
“I’ve seen countless, countless instances where the intelligence obtained through Section 702 quite literally saved lives,” House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) argued during the debate on the measure.
“There is no way to replace the value that Section 702 provides,” he went on, adding: “We have seen no evidence that this administration is misusing Section 702, but nonetheless, we must remain hyper- vigilant.”