Deadline looms: Biden faces challenge in reauthorising key spy tool amid privacy & national security debate
The article discusses the imminent deadline for reauthorising the crucial spy program, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as the Biden administration navigates a complex debate over privacy and national security, with key disagreements on a warrant requirement and exceptions.
As the year approaches its end, the Biden administration faces a time crunch, with just seven weeks remaining, to secure the reauthorisation of a crucial spy program. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, deemed essential for preventing terrorism, catching spies, and disrupting cyberattacks, is set to expire at the end of December. The White House and Congress must navigate an intricate debate, characterized by unexpected alliances at the crossroads of privacy and national security, to reach a deal and avert the expiration of this tool.
Without the program, administration officials warn, the government won't be able to collect crucial intelligence overseas. But civil liberties advocates from across the political spectrum say the law as it stands now infringes on the privacy of ordinary Americans and insist that changes are needed before the program is reauthorised.
"Renewing this law before it expires is among the most consequential national security decisions we face as a country," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, the Justice Department's top national security official, said at an event last month.
Enacted in 2008, the law allows the US intelligence community to collect, without a warrant, the communications of foreigners overseas suspected of posing a national security threat. Critically, this also encompasses the communications of American citizens and others within the US when they are in contact with the targeted foreigners.
Over the past year, the Biden administration has been advocating for the renewal of the law. They have highlighted numerous instances where intelligence obtained through Section 702 played a crucial role, either in thwarting an attack, such as an assassination plot on US soil, or contributing to a successful operation, like the strike last year that resulted in the death of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri.
National security officials highlight that 59 percent of articles in the president's daily brief incorporate Section 702 information. They underscore the program's importance, particularly during a period when Israel's conflict with Hamas raises concerns about potential attacks within the US.
Despite a general consensus on the program's value, there are significant differences in how both sides of the debate envision its structure. This divergence has resulted in a deadlock as the deadline looms, compounded by Congress's focus on a hectic year-end agenda. This agenda includes a government shutdown deadline and ongoing disputes over border security and war spending. The White House has already rejected the one known legislative proposal that has been put forward, deeming it unworkable.
Adding to the challenges for the administration is the fact that the coalition of lawmakers skeptical of government surveillance comprises both privacy-focused liberal Democrats and Republicans who strongly supported former President Donald Trump. These Republicans still harbor suspicions toward the intelligence community, particularly in connection with the investigation into ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.
Even though reaching a compromise poses evident challenges, the eleventh-hour scramble between the White House and Congress has become a routine occurrence whenever the government's surveillance powers face renewal. The last renewal for this specific program took place in January 2018, marked by a divided vote in Congress. Former President Trump signed it into law, praising the tool for "saving lives" while also expressing approval for a new requirement intended to safeguard privacy.
"A lot of these in the past have gone up to the brink. There is a history here of this brinksmanship when you have these statutory sunsets," commented Jamil Jaffer, the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University's law school and a former senior Justice Department official involved in the creation of the law.
In the ongoing discussions this year, a significant point of disagreement involves some members of Congress insisting, against strong White House objections, on the requirement for federal agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing intelligence collected on individuals in the US. This demand has gained prominence following a series of revelations in the past year regarding improper searches of the intelligence database by FBI analysts. These searches were related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the racial justice protests of 2020, and information concerning state and federal political figures.
The Biden administration has asserted that compliance errors by the FBI are exceptionally rare considering the extensive number of overall database queries. They contend that the bureau has implemented significant reforms to mitigate the potential for intrusions on civil liberties.
The call for a warrant requirement has garnered support from Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and is among the most pro-Trump members of Congress. Additionally, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, a long-standing advocate for civil liberties and a prominent liberal figure for decades, also backs the warrant requirement.
Last week, Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill in collaboration with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Republican Representative Andy Biggs, a staunch supporter of Trump. The proposed legislation would require a warrant to access the communications of individuals within the US, with limited exemptions. These exemptions would apply in cases where officials need to prevent an imminent threat to public safety or if the subject of the query has given consent to the search.
Before the bill's official announcement, a senior administration official informed reporters that a warrant requirement is a "red line" for the White House. The official emphasized that this requirement would curtail officials' capacity to promptly detect and respond to potentially crucial intelligence. Speaking on condition of anonymity, as per White House rules, the official argued that such a mandate would not only be operationally unfeasible but also legally unnecessary. This is because it would compel officials to obtain a warrant to scrutinize intelligence that had already been lawfully collected.
In an interview, Wyden expressed a firm belief in the significance of warrants, stating that they are crucial because the Founding Fathers deemed them important. However, he also emphasized that his team has taken a balanced approach by incorporating significant exceptions to the warrant requirement.
"We're not negotiating with ourselves," Wyden said. "We've got an open-door policy. If there are concerns from the administration, they ought to come up, make the case and talk them through."