House rejects short FISA extension; law set to lapse

House rejects short FISA extension; law set to lapse
Image source: CBS News
Save

The House on Thursday rejected a short-term extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, voting 218-198 against the measure and effectively ensuring the authority will expire Friday night.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had fast-tracked the measure, which required a two-thirds majority for passage, and he urged lawmakers to "put politics aside" and approve a short-term extension, he said Wednesday.

The proposal would have pushed the program's deadline to July 2, but a Democratic uproar over President Donald Trump's appointment of Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence helped sink the bill; it won the support of only seven Democrats, and 19 Republicans voted to reject the punt.

The House is not expected to vote again until June 23, effectively ensuring Section 702 will expire for the first time since it was enacted in 2008.

Many House Republicans said they expect the administration can and will continue to operate the program, possibly under a forthcoming executive order, but tech providers could mount legal challenges and national security officials warned a lapse could temporarily limit visibility into surveillance targets under the law.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview, "Hopefully it is," when asked if an executive order would be enough to keep Americans safe in the interim, and he added, "Anybody who votes 'no' is casting a dangerous vote to put American lives at risk," saying Trump and his national security deputies "are going to do what they have to do to keep the country safe." He said the burden for finding a solution lies with the Senate "to figure out some kind of path."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other leaders said in a joint statement, "Section 702 is a critical foreign intelligence authority, but we cannot in good conscience vote for reauthorization without significant reforms to protect both national security and the constitutional privacy rights of Americans."

3 Sources
Discussion 0 comments
No comments yet — be the first!