\n<\/p>\n
A messy fight<\/span> over whether the U.S. government can conduct warrantless surveillance of American citizens could come down to whether four Democrats endorse Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson\u2019s latest plan.<\/p>\n Johnson was stymied this month when he attempted to push through a reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The roadblock came thanks to opposition from most Democrats, plus 20 hard-right members of the GOP caucus<\/a>.<\/p>\n The four Democrats are Reps. Gottheimer, Suozzi, Gluesenkamp Perez, and Golden<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Still, four Democrats crossed party lines to vote for a procedural motion to advance the bill, despite instructions from House Democratic leaders to the contrary. Whether those four support Johnson during a vote this week could prove crucial.<\/p>\n The four Democrats are Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Tom Suozzi of New Jersey, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Jared Golden of Maine, who is not seeking reelection this year. None responded to requests for comment.<\/p>\n One advocate said the outcome of the vote could hinge on their decision.<\/p>\n \u201cIt all comes down to those four and where they are going to land,\u201d said Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at the left-leaning advocacy group Demand Progress, \u201cand if they are going to continue to try to hand Trump and Stephen Miller warrantless surveillance authorities without any sort of checks or reforms that make sure they\u2019re not violating civil liberties.\u201d<\/p>\n Given the skepticism of hard-right Republican lawmakers, Johnson needs every vote he can muster. On Thursday, he put forward a new proposal to extend the law for three years, with additional layers of oversight and auditing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The latest proposal does not address reformers\u2019 highest priority: a warrant requirement that would force FBI agents and National Security Agency analysts to get a court order before they search for information on Americans from ostensibly \u201cforeign\u201d communications \u2014 material collected abroad as the NSA scoops up emails, text messages, and the like.<\/p>\n Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Johnson\u2019s latest proposal does little to change existing law. Under Johnson\u2019s proposal, searches would be reviewed after the fact by a privacy officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and potentially later by an inspector general.<\/p>\n \u201cThis just follows the old pattern of adding layer after layer of oversight,\u201d he said. \u201cThe idea that the inspector general of the intelligence community is going to stand up to Trump on any sort of abuses is just not going to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe idea that the inspector general of the intelligence community is going to stand up to Trump on any sort of abuses is just not going to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York threw cold water on the idea of Democratic leadership formally supporting Johnson during a press conference Thursday before the latest draft was released. He said<\/a> it would be \u201cextremely difficult\u201d for Democrats to find common ground with Republicans on the issue so long as Kash Patel \u2014 who has been embroiled in controversy over allegations about his drinking habits<\/a> \u2014\u00a0remains director of the FBI.<\/p>\n Johnson may not need to make major concessions to bring a handful of Democrats over to his side.<\/p>\n A large group of centrists has signaled that they would support a \u201cclean\u201d extension of FISA \u2014 without major reforms \u2014 if it comes to the House floor. But they have so far followed the advice of Jeffries to oppose a procedural vote to bring the bill to the floor.<\/p>\n On April 17, the smaller group of four Democrats took the additional step of crossing party lines to support Johnson on the procedural vote, which ultimately failed, thanks only to hard-right members of the GOP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
No Warrant Requirement<\/h2>\n
\n