The latest attempt to re-up a controversial expiring surveillance law has failed to placate vocal critics on both the left and right of the political spectrum.

Two House votes failed last week to extend the spying powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for 18 months without changes, leading to Congress instead passing a 10-day reauthorization. GOP leaders have been scrambling to find a bill they can pass since with the April 30 deadline approaching.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., introduced a bill Thursday to extend it for three years, with a section stating that government officials can’t use Section 702 to target Americans. Under Section 702, U.S. spies and law enforcement agencies can warrantlessly search electronic communications of foreign targets. But those targets are sometimes communicating with U.S. persons, and officials can search the communications database using their personal information.

But critics of the latest Johnson proposal say the language about targeting Americans is window dressing.

“On the whole, it is an empty-calories bill and nothing more that does not engage in reform,” Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the center’s security and surveillance project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a call with reporters Friday.

Civil liberties groups have long called for a warrant requirement for U.S. person-based searches.

“It doesn’t require a warrant or any kind of court process for U.S. person searches,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s political advocacy division. “The main reform just restates existing law… . It’s also completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, because backdoor searches have never been the product of the government intentionally targeting U.S. persons under 702. The problem is that they are incidentally collecting U.S. person communications and searching the communications of Americans.”

Gene Schaerr, general counsel of the conservative Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, called the proposal “smoke and mirrors.”

The legislation did win over at least one key lawmaker, however: Rep. Warren Davidson, who had earlier introduced an amendment to attach a ban on the government buying American’s information from third-party data brokers, and who was a chief co-sponsor of legislation requiring a warrant for U.S. person searches under Section 702.

“Collectively, this set of reforms provides robust privacy protections for American citizens. Congress should bank this win and reauthorize Section 702,” Davidson said on X. “Then, we should swiftly begin gutting the unmitigated surveillance state left growing unchecked during these 702 fights.”

But it doesn’t look like it has yet won over enough conservative House Freedom Caucus members, and few Democrats have been on board with Johnson’s plans.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., indicated on X in harsh terms that he doesn’t trust FBI Director Kash Patel with current Section 702 powers.

The post Latest spy power reauthorization bill leaves critics unimpressed appeared first on CyberScoop.

Congress is grappling with renewal of a surveillance law set to expire at the end of this month that critics say is a mystery on how much of a difference it has made for controversial government spying authorities — for better or worse.

The 2024 law reauthorized so-called Section 702 powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes warrantless surveillance of electronic communications of foreign targets. Most controversially, the law allows U.S. officials to search (“query”) those communications databases using Americans’ personal information, as long as the American is  in contact with someone overseas, which raises significant privacy concerns.

Backers of the 2024 law, known as the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), point to 56 changes it made to deal with criticisms of Section 702, following a period where abuses came to light, including hundreds of thousands of improper searches. At the same time, the law made changes that some feared could actually expand Section 702 powers.

The House voted to extend the law as-is for 10 days early Friday. The Senate then did the same. The Trump administration has sought a 180-day “clean” reauthorization.

As Congress weighs potential extensions of the 2024 law without making changes to it, “I don’t think we know” what good has come of it, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program. By the same token, it’s difficult to know whether some of the expansion fears have come to fruition, she said: “We don’t have reliable information on this.”

Added Jake Laperruque of the Center for Democracy and Technology: “There’s a lot of black boxes here.”

Examining Past Changes

Both Goitein and Laperruque are skeptical of any positive change from RISAA, though, and have long advocated for a warrant requirement for U.S. person searches. Intelligence agencies have resisted that addition, claiming that it would dramatically slow down time-sensitive national security investigations.

By contrast, Glenn Gerstell, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, said RISAA constituted “the most significant set of reforms to the statute since its adoption in 2008.” and that “those reforms have had a dramatic effect.” 

One major point of dispute is to what degree the number of U.S. person searches dropped, particularly because of a conclusion in last year’s Justice Department inspector general report finding that an “advanced filtering tool generated queries that were not tracked by the FBI.” 

As the report outlines, an FBI system has an “‘advanced filter function’ that allows users to select a specific FBI casefile number or ‘facility’ (e.g., a phone number or email address), using a drop-down menu or search bar, to review communications with targeted facilities.

“This functionality enables users to select from lists of ‘participants’ in communication with targeted facilities and review communications of those participants.In or around August 2024,” the report continues. The National Security Division of the Justice Department “became aware of the participants filter function in [the system] and was concerned that searches conducted through use of the participants filter constituted separate queries that must satisfy the query standard and comply with all query procedural requirements.”

By the intelligence community’s count, the number of U.S. person searches has otherwise mostly declined even going back to before the 2024 law’s passage: 119,383 in 2022, 57,094 in 2023, 5,518 in 2024 and 7,413 in 2025.

“It is quite clear that the searches that were run using this filter function met the statutory definition of queries, and yet the FBI for some significant period of time decided to not count them as queries,” Goitein said.

Laperruque, deputy director of CDT’s security and surveillance project, said an audit mandate in the 2024 law was potentially useful, but hasn’t proven to be in reality.

“At least it should mean that it should help try to detect abuse if it is happening,” he said. “The problem there, though, is you’re still relying on the FBI to properly log all of its quarries and hand them over for DOJ to be checked, which hasn’t happened. You’re trusting DOJ and the executive to engage in self-policing, and that’s something where folks rightfully have a lot of skepticism based on how DOJ has conducted itself recently.”

Gerstell, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points to numerous reviews — including a staff report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) — that indicate a drop in U.S. person searches. It’s the biggest change of RISAA, he said.

“The most significant one is a very substantial drop in the number of queries of the database for U.S. person information, which has been a big focus for privacy advocates, and there’s been a dramatic drop, so much so that both the Inspector General for the Department of Justice and the staff of the PCLOB have said, ‘I wonder if we’re overdoing it.’ … Every single one of them presents those numbers, without caveat.”

On the advanced filter function count, Gerstell acknowledged the ambiguity, but referred to reports that said, as he summarized, “If they had been considered queries, it appears that most would have been compliant anyway… because they were a subset of something that was already compliant. But we don’t know if any of them were noncompliant, and we don’t have the data.”

On the other side of the RISAA debate, critics argued that its revised definition of “electronic communications service provider” could dramatically expand surveillance to include businesses like coffee shops or landlords. The reported, but formally undisclosed, real target of the change was data centers.

“That was a pretty big expansion with a lot of potential abuse,” Laperruque said. But “we don’t really know much about how it’s changed” anything, he said.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, sought to advance clarifying language about that subject after RISAA’s passage, and the Biden administration said it would confine the provision’s use to the kind of undisclosed businesses that prompted the provision in the first place. Laperreque noted that the Trump administration has made no such promises, and Warner’s clarifying language never became law.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has issued its annual opinion re-certifying the Section 702 program for another year. However, the court reportedly took issue with the program’s f filtering systems, saying that when such a system is used to look for information on Americans it must be counted as a query, subjecting it to additional restrictions. The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling.

Other critiques of the 2024 law include that many of its biggest changes weren’t changes at all, but instead codifications of changes that then-FBI Director Christopher Wray had implemented. Abuses continued after those changes, Goitein said.

Gerstell said enshrining those changes into law wasn’t a bad thing. “The statute expressly codified some but not all of Wray reforms — and some went beyond that in many ways,” he said. Those changes included requiring FBI deputy director approval of U.S. person queries that target elected officials, government appointees, political candidates or organizations, or media. Those were some of the more criticized prior targeting abuses.

The fight still ahead

Republicans remain divided over extending the law. Some who had reservations about a clean reauthorization have come on board, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who had taken issue with limitations on congressional attendance of FISC proceedings but since has had that concern resolved.

Others may have been swayed by direct lobbying from the Trump administration, including a social media post from Trump himself this week, where he wrote, “I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!” Still others have had their position against a clean extension hardened by the FISC court opinion and additional concerns.

Other issues have become enmeshed in the reauthorization debate, such as calls to block government agencies from purchasing information from data brokers. But “this has nothing to do with this authority,” said George Barnes, former deputy director of the NSA. 

But lawmakers of both parties have complained for months that the administration was silent for too long as the law’s expiration loomed.

Only recently did the Trump administration share new examples of the law’s successes, including that it had thwarted a 2024 terrorist attack on a Taylor Swift concert. Barnes said releasing such examples might offer a public case for the law, but has its downsides, too.

“I was always understanding but frustrated by the need to release examples just because they choreographed to the adversary what we could do,” said Barnes, now Red Cell’s cyber practice president. 

Reauthorizing Section 702 is urgent, though, for cybersecurity purposes, he said.

“A lot of the impact that I saw the authority having over my time was in cybersecurity as well,” he said. “And so when you have foreign entities that are targeting the U.S., or U.S. interests overseas, that authority can be positioned to help eliminate those activities.”

The post The surveillance law Congress can’t quit — and can’t explain appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration is withdrawing the United States from a handful of international organizations that work to strengthen cybersecurity.

As part of a broader pullback from 66 international organizations, the administration is leaving the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the Online Freedom Coalition and the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats.

Trump’s decision is in line with a president who has expressed hostility toward the existing international order, an approach critics fear creates a leadership power vacuum for U.S. adversaries to fill.

“The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Thursday. “President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

Rubio criticized the international organizations over “DEI mandates,” “‘gender equity’ campaigns” and activities that “constrain American sovereignty.”

The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise works on issues such as critical infrastructure protection, cybercrime, cyber skills and policy and emerging technology. Its members include nations and government organizations like Interpol, but also tech companies like Hewlett Packard, Mastercard and Palo Alto Networks.

The forum says it supports gender inclusivity, asserting that “gender is a cross cutting issue with direct relevance to achieving international peace and security.”

A former president of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise Foundation, Chris Painter, said he was “ surprised” by the withdrawal.

“It’s a non-political capacity-building platform that the U.S. helped establish and that has done good work in the Western Balkans and Asian Pacific, among other places, that I think advances U.S. interests,” said Painter, also the former top cyber diplomat at the State Department.

Ron Deibert, a professor of political science and the founder and director of the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, said the withdrawal from the forum and the cuts at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would “further erode network security coordination at a time when the magnitude of cyber threats are rapidly increasing.”

Nina Jankowicz, a former Biden administration disinformation official who now head of the American Sunlight Project, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting disinformation, took note of the Trump administration — “which claims to care about free speech” — exiting the Freedom Online Coalition, which counts as its goals the support of “free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online.”

The coalition has campaigned against cybersecurity laws that suppress human rights and cyberattacks that imperil individual safety.

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats works to protect its members, which include members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, from an array of threats, among them those that manifest in cyberspace.

The Trump administration also withdrew from other organizations whose work more tangentially touches on cybersecurity, such as the International Law Commission.

Whatever flaws there are with some of the organizations Trump withdrew from, they are contributors to the “international rules-based order,” Deibert said 

“Without state participation, especially the powerful rich states, these forums will grind to a halt,” he said. “Even on a symbolic level, having a government like the U.S. ‘not there’ means very little can happen on a global level. This will likely lead to more regionalization and likely greater spaces for corruption and authoritarian practices to spread.”

The U.S. decision will “inevitably weaken the rights and security of Americans and people around the world for years to come,” said Alexandra Givens, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

“Americans should be concerned that their government is abandoning longstanding efforts to advance democracy, defend human rights online, and stop the abuses of spyware, particularly as free expression comes under attack from governments around the world — including our own,” Givens said. “U.S. participation in international collaboration on human rights standards helps keep Americans safe.”

The post Trump pulls US out of international cyber orgs appeared first on CyberScoop.