Section 702 of FISA expired. Congress shouldn't rush to renew it. reason.com/2026/06/15/congre…

Everyone should be against FISA. With or without Bill Pulte or the SAVE America Act. FISA 702 is unconstitutional. It lets the government search Americans’ communications without a warrant. Add a warrant requirement as the Fourth Amendment demands—or leave it expired forever.

CONGRESS: Vote NO on the short-term reauthorization of Section 702 and open it up for debate and add a warrant requirement!

Here we go again; the House is going to debate a clean reauthorization of the unconstitutional FISA 702 program tonight. This program is used to surveil Americans without a warrant. I’ll be joining the @cspan debate on the floor in the next hour… in opposition to this madness.

That's not correct. Section 702 was already on the ropes. It took the House three tries to pass a bill and the Senate rejected it. The only viable path to renewal is for Republican leaders to allow votes on real reforms, including a warrant requirement for backdoor searches.

No more short-term FISA 702 extensions. Congress has punted long enough. This isn’t hard: Require a warrant before the government can search Americans’ communications. The Fourth Amendment isn’t optional.

Congress must not renew FISA Section 702 without reforms to protect Americans from warrantless spying. Otherwise, “abuses of the law are not only possible, they are also inevitable,” @Lizagoitein writes in @thehill. thehill.com/opinion/congress…

Requiring intelligence agencies and law enforcement to get a warrant before spying on Americans' electronic communications is "madness," says Stephen Miller. No, it's what the Fourth Amendment requires. reason.com/2026/06/08/stephe…

Congress has spent months trying to reauthorize FISA Section 702. This is the controversial surveillance authority the government uses to collect massive amounts of data, which officials then search for Americans’ emails, calls, text messages, and other communications – all without a warrant! The program is currently set to expire on June 12, and last week, another effort to push a multi-year reauthorization failed in the Senate. That’s good news. FISA 702 must not be reauthorized without meaningful reforms, and any bill that allows the government to keep searching Americans’ private communications without a warrant should be rejected. But the debate around last week’s vote was telling. While more senators than usual opposed the bill, it wasn’t because they suddenly recognized the constitutional problem with warrantless surveillance. Their unease stemmed largely from President Trump’s choice of Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Many who otherwise would have backed a long extension became wary once they saw who would be wielding this authority. That reaction is understandable – especially when dealing with power that includes rummaging through Americans’ private messages. But if your support for warrantless surveillance hinges on who holds a particular office, you’ve already proven why we need strict constitutional limits. In our constitutional republic, individual rights are not supposed to rise and fall with election results. The Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, was written precisely so that our liberty does not depend on trusting the men and women temporarily in power. It establishes rules meant to protect our liberty regardless of who occupies the White House, controls Congress, or leads a federal agency. The question for Congress isn’t whether this official or that official can be trusted. It’s not about Bill Pulte. The question is whether the federal government should be allowed to search Americans’ private communications without probable cause and a warrant. The Fourth Amendment answers clearly: No. Congressional leaders have spent months playing games and trying to craft procedural compromises and political deals that continue to sidestep this core constitutional safeguard. If the government wants to search our communications, then it must obtain a warrant – just as the Constitution demands. Congress should not reauthorize FISA 702 without that fundamental protection. If it’s unwilling to provide it, then the authority should expire. – @justinamash P.S. With the June 12 expiration just days away, your voice matters. Please contact your representative and senators today at (202) 224-3121 and urge them: No reauthorization of FISA Section 702 without a warrant requirement for searches of Americans’ communications.

A lot of words to say he hates the Fourth Amendment. Get a warrant!

Under FISA 702, the government collects massive amounts of data on Americans while “targeting” foreigners overseas. They then unconstitutionally search that data without a warrant for info on Americans. The “libertarian demand” he’s whining about is called the Fourth Amendment.

We need to stop the backdoor searches of Americans’ data and prevent the government from spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant based on probable cause.

It's purely irresponsible to let FISA 702 be reauthorized without a warrant requirement for American citizens. That's insane.

Good. The American people want real surveillance reform. Closing the backdoor search loophole is literally the least Congress could—and must—do.

Here's my buddy @SeanVitka and me at @thehill: Speaker Johnson, stop playing politics with privacy rights thehill.com/opinion/congress… @iDueProcess @demandprogress

Don't make decisions about whether & how gov't spies on Americans based on who’s in power. There's no guarantee your guy will be on top tomorrow. The Constitution sets rules that should help us rest easy no matter who's in charge. Just follow the Fourth Amdt. Demand a warrant.

There is only one way senators can force leadership to permit amendment votes or otherwise negotiate: vote NO on the procedural motion that will take place in the coming days. Senators who support reform are the majority; they have real leverage. They must use it. 18/18

Even more disturbing is the provision titled “Restriction on use of United States person information acquired under section 702 in criminal prosecutions.” Notwithstanding the Orwellian title, this provision actually *removes* existing restrictions on such use. 9/18