The Trump administration is breaking the law after being more than a month overdue on declassifying a court opinion on the surveillance of U.S. citizens, according to two senators and a coalition of civil liberties groups.

Release of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinion has been closely tied to reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which lapsed this summer, although collection authority has continued under another court ruling that runs through March of next year.

Under Section 702, the government can warrantlessly search foreign targets’ electronic and phone communications using the personal information of Americans who have been in contact with them.

In the FISC opinion that the administration has not declassified, a judge objected to tools the government has created to let analysts process messages. The objection reportedly was over a filtering system that allowed analysts to get information in a way that should be counted as a query of Americans’ information, which is subject to extra protections.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who co-authored a letter to administration officials Monday with Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had previously said the opinion shows “major compliance problems” and had  objected to a short-term reauthorization of Section 702 until officials agreed to release it.

“As Congress continues to debate the fate of this authority, lawmakers must be able to discuss these abuses openly,” Wyden and Schiff wrote to Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Otherwise, the American people will rightly question whether a government that so flagrantly violates basic legal requirements, like the statute requiring declassification, can ever be trusted to not abuse a powerful surveillance tool like Section 702.”

The Senate duo and the coalition of civil liberties groups in a separate letter to congressional leaders said that under the law, the letter was due Sept. 13. Blanche had previously committed to declassify the letter to lawmakers by the statutory deadline. The letter was also overdue by another measurement, with the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee saying that they expected the declassification and release by May 15.

A spokesperson for Senate Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., didn’t respond to a request for comment, but the office of the leader of the Democratic side of the panel, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, did.

“The Vice Chairman has been clear that he supports transparency with regard to Section 702 of FISA,” a spokesperson, Rachel Cohen, said in a statement to CyberScoop. “This is precisely why he and Chairman Cotton urged then-DNI [Tulsi] Gabbard in March to declassify the March 17 FISC opinion. Unfortunately, neither Director Gabbard nor Acting Director [Bill] Pulte were responsive, but Senator Warner expects that DNI Clayton will declassify the opinion, consistent with the bipartisan SSCI letter and as required by law.”

Failure to declassify the opinion should be fatal to reauthorizing the expired surveillance law, the civil liberties groups wrote.

“Congress should refuse to support any reauthorization of Section 702 while the administration actively withholds legally mandated information about how the surveillance program operates,” they wrote. “Further, it must stop relying on executive branch self-policing to protect Americans’ rights and reauthorize Section 702 only with a warrant requirement to access Americans’ private communications.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The post Senators, rights groups say Trump administration breaking law by withholding surveillance court opinion appeared first on CyberScoop.

Members of Congress are pressing the Trump administration to expand the federal government’s role in securing artificial intelligence, wanting new safety standards and regulations, independent testing of models and more “aggressive” use of AI for defensive cybersecurity purposes.

In a letter, Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said that multiple incidents of frontier AI models escaping sandbox protections and breaching real companies, organizations and governments necessitate a stronger federal role in regulating the technology.

Recent revelations that hundreds, and possibly “tens of thousands,” of such incidents may have occurred for months without OpenAI’s staff detecting them makes the need for federal intervention even more urgent, the senators argued.

“These incidents come as AI systems are becoming dramatically more capable at discovering software vulnerabilities, writing and executing code, using digital tools, and operating autonomously,” the senators wrote.

The letter, addressed to Jay Clayton, director of national intelligence and new White House “AI czar” and Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urges the federal government “to bring its full capacities to bear on this challenge, building a coordinated national response around standards, testing, auditing, and defensive AI.”

The Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (CAISSI), housed within the Department of Commerce, has become the Trump administration’s main body for evaluating and testing AI models. In the letter, the senators are seeking to expand the center’s resources and mandate.

Under the Trump administration, testing of frontier models has been voluntary and focused on evaluating model capabilities, not restricting them. The administration has since said it has reached a safety testing framework with OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies to govern safety testing, but has not made the agreement public.

The senators call for CAISSI to spearhead the development of “technically grounded and measurable standards and risk management frameworks for advanced AI safety and security.” Those standards would address potential risks like cyberattacks, automated attacks on critical infrastructure and other threats.

“The standards should also address the security of the environments in which advanced AI systems are developed, trained, tested, and used internally, including protections against agents escaping testing environments, gaining unauthorized access to external systems, or taking actions beyond their intended permissions,” the senators wrote.

The letter argues the center and federal technology hubs like the National Institute of Standards and Technology should hire additional expertise in AI, cybersecurity, model evaluation and national security.

It also calls for a much broader community of independent and third-party testers. Currently, that testing is done almost entirely by AI companies and hand-selected auditors, like Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR), Redwood Research and others.

Last month, Chris Painter, president of METR, told Congress that the firm’s investigation of the Hugging Face hacking incident was at the invitation of OpenAI, which tightly controls which organizations and testers get access to its unreleased models. While they are permitted to publicize some findings, such as those that relate to potentially catastrophic risks to humanity, researchers are otherwise restricted from discussing other parts of their investigation through nondisclosure agreements.

Additionally, Painter suggested that frontier companies are relying too heavily on their own technology, rather than technical controls, to monitor and restrain their models in testing.

“Because of the scale and speed at which AI agents are deployed, companies depend on AI monitoring and controls instead of human supervision, to prevent unwanted agent behavior,” Painter said. “That is, monitoring of AI is now in large part done by other AI systems.”

The senators call for CAISSI, national laboratories and the Department of Energy to become federal testing sites. There, the government would evaluate AI models for advanced cyber capabilities, biological or chemical threats, threats to critical infrastructure, sandbox evasion techniques and other autonomous rule-breaking behavior. They also want testing opened to universities, independent research organizations and “qualified third-party evaluators,” including private sector companies.

Other federal bodies, like the National Security Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and National Science Foundation can help develop new standards and testbeds for AI tools used in defensive cybersecurity that can then be shared across government and with the public.

“The recent incidents make clear that the security infrastructure surrounding advanced AI must advance as quickly as the technology itself,” the senators wrote. “The United States has an opportunity to lead both sides of this challenge: building the standards, testing, and auditing infrastructure needed for increasingly powerful AI, while harnessing those same capabilities to make American networks harder to attack.”

You can read the full letter here.

The post Senators press Trump admin to rally federal government around AI safety, security  appeared first on CyberScoop.

An annual spy policy bill would authorize a cyberthreat intelligence sharing pilot program for state and local governments, and order an outside assessment of how intelligence agencies are currently sharing that information with those jurisdictions.

The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation Monday that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes.

The measure’s language on state and local information sharing come amid widespread frustration with Trump administration cutbacks on such aid from the federal government, with the president taking explicit action to shift more responsibility for cyber defenses to the local level.

Under the pilot program, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would pick one state to receive monthly briefings from the ODNI, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and others to receive monthly briefings on “timely, specific, and actionable information regarding cyber threats” in unclassified form. After a year, the ODNI would then provide a report on the viability of a wider briefing program for state and local governments.

The bill requires the ODNI to produce a strategy on information sharing with states and local areas, and would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an assessment of the state of such sharing now, including a summary of relevant agencies’ current efforts, how the agencies deconflict those efforts and what kind of obstacles security clearances pose to improving information sharing.

Trump’s pick to serve as DNI, Jay Clayton, emphasized his desire to focus on cyber threat information sharing as part of his Senate vetting last week, but some in the GOP are also pushing to significantly reduce the size of his office.

National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has also talked about creating pilot programs for cyber threat information sharing with state and local governments, but there’s been little movement on that initiative.

During committee deliberation, panel Democrats won adoption of a trio of election security amendments.

An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And  Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.

The Democrats’ push arrives shortly after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address seeking to bolster his long-debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

According to a Republican summary of the bill, it includes provisions for “significantly increasing funding for expanded access and use of frontier AI models for intelligence and cyber missions,” to codify and expand the role of the Artificial Intelligence Security Center at the National Security Agency and strengthen information sharing on AI threats.

“This year’s [bill] balances strong transparency and accountability measures while equipping the IC with the resources needed to combat the ever-evolving threats from our adversaries around the world, with a particularly strong focus on the global AI race,” said House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark.

Another assessment that the bill orders would come from the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy on foreign cyberthreats to critical energy infrastructure, including their intent and risks.

The trend in Congress is for lawmakers to incorporate the annual intelligence authorization bill, or some of its provisions, into the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which often reaches the president’s desk at the end of each calendar year.

The post House intel bill includes provisions on state and local threat intelligence, election security, AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

Democratic senators pressed President Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence on questions of election security and integrity Wednesday, but they didn’t leave his nomination hearing satisfied with the answers.

As is typical for Trump administration nominees, Jay Clayton wouldn’t answer definitively at his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, saying only that he was “certified,” while maintaining that he wasn’t an “election denier.”

He said that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s responsibilities were “principally” outside the United States. But he claimed varying degrees of ignorance about his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, being physically present at an FBI raid of a Georgia election office in January, and wouldn’t comment on its appropriateness.

Democratic senators were also frustrated while trying to pin down Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who served as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Trump’s first term, on remarks about mail-in ballots and the California primary election results last month.

Multiple senators, including Mark Warner, D-Va., Angus King, I-Maine and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., tried to get Clayton to say whether Biden won the 2020 election. The final exchange came with Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.

Clayton protested that he had already answered. “I think I’ve answered the question,” he said. “We can keep doing this.”

Ossoff didn’t agree, telling him, “Well we’re going to keep doing it because you’re not being honest or forthright with the committee.”

“Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?” he asked. “To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?”

Earlier Clayton had said, “I’m not an election denier,” but repeatedly wouldn’t answer “yes” or “no” on whether Biden won in 2020.

That matters because of the DNI’s role, Kelly said, and it was worrying that Clayton was seeking to avoid upsetting Trump, who has maintained despite all evidence that he lost the 2020 election.

“It’s not about softening the edges when the truth is unpleasant,” Kelly said. “It’s about delivering information.”

Clayton discussed the DNI’s role on election security at greater length in pre-hearing written answers.

“I understand that the DNI, as head of the Intelligence Community, has substantial statutory authority to address national intelligence threats to U.S. elections,” he said. “In particular, the Director is responsible for the integration of national intelligence, which may include foreign intelligence threats to U.S. election activity. I also understand that Intelligence Community elements are authorized to cooperate with and provide appropriate intelligence and technical support to law enforcement agencies and that as head of the Intelligence Community, the DNI has oversight of those activities.”

A CNBC interview last month inspired some of the Democrats’ questions. Clayton said in response to questions about the California primaries that “On the integrity side, we’re doing an absolutely terrible job. And the American people are right to question it.” 

He said mail-in ballots present an “opportunity for fraud,” despite studies showing exceptionally low rates of fraud using that method, and said “mail-in ballots being used by one group and not another… honestly and dishonestly” was a “question that everyone is now asking.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked him about what group Clayton was referring to.

“”I would like to see where you’re pulling those quotes from. I’ve been very careful about my remarks on this,” Clayton answered. “I’d like to see the whole passage.”

In his questionnaire, when asked if “it would be inappropriate for a DNI to comment publicly about unsubstantiated claims regarding mail-in-ballots and election fraud,” Clayton answered that “If confirmed as DNI, any representations I make to the public, including about elections, will be informed by timely, objective national intelligence.”

Ossoff also had a tense exchange with Clayton when asking him about Gabbard’s appearance at the Fulton County office raid. Gabbard has said she was there because Trump asked her to be, in what subsequently became a highly publicized appearance because of questions about what the DNI would be doing at a law enforcement raid.

“I was made aware of it by you yesterday,” Clayton said.

Ossoff responded skeptically: “The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday?”

Said Clayton: “It was the first time that in my recollection I’ve thought about it recently.”

“What?” Ossoff replied.

Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, told Clayton “I trust you” but it “strains credulity” that he wasn’t aware of Gabbard being at the raid.

“To be clear, the ODNI’s role is principally outside of the United States,” Clayton said.

On other topics, in his opening remarks, Clayton touted his SEC work on cybersecurity. In his questionnaire he said he would work to facilitate cyberthreat information sharing from his office.

He told Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that he would evaluate whether the DNI should devote more resources to cybersecurity with federal government cyber experts being pushed out since Trump came back to office. Many Republicans are pushing to further reduce the size of Clayton’s office, contending it has become bloated beyond Congress’ original intentions as a coordinating body.

He said he supported renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the executive branch controversial spying powers that Congress recently allowed to expire.

Trump has threatened to block renewal unless lawmakers advance his priority election bill. He said he will study how to “minimize the detrimental impact to our national security caused by the lapse in 702 authorities.” Some Democrats, meanwhile, have resisted action on the law until Trump’s pick for acting DNI Bill Pulte is gone, citing his prior efforts to investigate officials as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and lack of intelligence experience.

Because the GOP controls the Senate, Clayton is likely to get confirmed as DNI as long as no Republicans emerge in opposition. Wednesday’s hearing revealed no significant Republican objections.

Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., touted Clayton’s experience prosecuting terrorism cases and more.

“Jay Clayton has worked hand in glove with our intelligence agencies and counterterrorism personnel to lock up criminals who threaten our national security,” Clayton said. “I encourage my colleagues to join me and get Mr. Clayton’s nomination over the finish line.”

The post Dems press DNI nominee Jay Clayton on election security questions, but leave dismayed appeared first on CyberScoop.