Sens. Ron Wyden and Adam Schiff say the administration missed a federal deadline to release a classified surveillance court ruling detailing serious violations of Americans’ privacy rights as intelligence officials seek congressional renewal of warrantless surveillance powers.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — Two Democratic senators are accusing the Trump administration of violating federal law by withholding a classified court ruling concerning government surveillance of Americans, demanding its immediate release before Congress considers renewing a controversial intelligence-gathering program.
Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Adam Schiff of California sent a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and Attorney General Todd Blanche, arguing that the administration failed to comply with a September 13 deadline to publicly release a declassified version of a March 17 opinion issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The senators said the still-secret ruling identifies “serious abuses of Americans’ rights” involving Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits federal intelligence agencies to collect communications involving foreign targets outside the United States without obtaining individual warrants.
Although the program targets non-Americans overseas, communications involving Americans can also be collected when they interact with foreign surveillance targets.
The controversy centers on government analysts’ ability to search those communications using internal filtering tools without obtaining warrants or complying with certain approval and documentation requirements.
According to a WIRED investigation, the March ruling found that certain surveillance tools used to identify Americans’ communications violated statutory requirements governing searches of intelligence databases.
The court reportedly determined that filtering intercepted communications to identify information involving Americans constituted a search subject to legal restrictions, even when agencies classified the activity as an internal filtering operation.
The ruling has not been publicly released, preventing independent examination of its complete findings.
Wyden and Schiff maintain that withholding the opinion deprives lawmakers and the public of essential information about government surveillance practices.
“As Congress continues to debate the fate of this authority, lawmakers must be able to discuss these abuses openly,” the senators wrote. “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.”
Federal law requires the executive branch to conduct a declassification review of significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and release them, with appropriate redactions when necessary, within 180 days.
The March 17 ruling reached that deadline September 13, but the administration had not released a public version as of October 29.
The senators requested an explanation for the delay and the identities of officials responsible for withholding the opinion, setting a response deadline of November 6.
The dispute comes as the administration seeks to restore Section 702, which expired in June after Congress failed to approve another extension.
Despite the statutory expiration, intelligence collection continues under a court authorization issued in March that permits surveillance through March 2027.
Consequently, the administration is seeking renewed legislative authority while withholding an opinion that lawmakers say documents significant compliance failures involving the same surveillance program.
The ruling reportedly concerns the government’s use of software tools capable of identifying communications involving Americans within large collections of intercepted foreign intelligence.
One such system, known as the “participants filter,” allowed FBI analysts to identify messages involving particular individuals who communicated with surveillance targets.
The tool raised concerns because analysts could retrieve Americans’ communications without those activities being recorded as searches subject to statutory safeguards.
The Justice Department previously informed the surveillance court that FBI personnel had conducted queries using filtering tools that were not properly documented.
The FBI subsequently discontinued one version of the system, but concerns emerged after investigators learned that comparable functionality remained available through other tools.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the March 2026 court opinion indicated that problems the Justice Department previously characterized as resolved were continuing and extended beyond the FBI.
The organization said the reported findings undermined assurances that reforms adopted in 2024 had adequately restricted improper searches of Americans’ communications.
Those reforms, enacted through the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, introduced additional requirements governing database searches involving Americans.
However, the Brennan Center argued that searches conducted through filtering tools were not consistently recorded or included in government compliance statistics.
Because those activities were not fully tracked, the organization said published figures could understate the actual number of searches involving Americans.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent federal agency responsible for evaluating counterterrorism and surveillance policies, previously raised concerns about the government’s ability to monitor such activity.
The board described searches conducted through certain filtering tools as “not possible to track,” highlighting limitations in existing oversight procedures.
The controversy also follows FBI Director Kash Patel’s decision in May 2025 to close the bureau’s Office of Internal Auditing, which had been responsible for examining compliance with surveillance requirements.
Civil liberties organizations argue that the closure reduced internal oversight at a time when agencies were already facing questions about undocumented searches.
The Center for Democracy and Technology joined more than 20 organizations in calling for the surveillance court’s opinion to be made public before lawmakers consider renewing Section 702.
The groups maintain that Congress cannot adequately evaluate the government’s compliance record without reviewing the court’s findings.
The release demand has also received bipartisan support.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., previously requested that the administration publish the opinion before congressional consideration of Section 702 legislation.
Their April letter expressed the expectation that the declassification review would be completed and the opinion released by May 15.
That deadline passed without publication.
During congressional proceedings in July, Blanche committed to completing the required declassification process within the statutory 180-day period.
Wyden and Schiff cited that commitment in their latest letter, arguing that the administration has failed to meet both congressional requests and its legal obligations.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether federal agents should be required to obtain judicial warrants before searching intelligence databases for Americans’ private communications.
Supporters of stronger restrictions contend that warrant requirements are necessary to prevent government surveillance powers from being used to circumvent constitutional privacy protections.
Intelligence agencies and supporters of Section 702 maintain that the program is essential for identifying foreign threats, investigating terrorism and detecting hostile intelligence activities.
They argue that additional judicial requirements could delay time-sensitive investigations and interfere with national security operations.
Some Republican lawmakers have nevertheless joined Democrats in advocating stronger safeguards.
According to Roll Call, Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., said Monday that congressional renewal could face difficulties unless the legislation includes additional protections for Americans’ communications.
“I think that we can do something reasonable, but we need some protections for American civil liberties that are not, in my opinion, currently in there,” Griffith said. “I know there’s big disagreement with some of my colleagues, but I think there needs to be a warrant.”
The administration has not publicly released the complete March ruling or established a definitive publication date.
Wyden and Schiff are also seeking reforms that would require warrants for certain searches involving Americans, restrict government purchases of private information from data brokers and narrow the circumstances in which private companies can be compelled to assist surveillance operations.
The senators warned that the failure to publish the ruling undermines confidence in the government’s willingness to comply with other restrictions on intelligence gathering.
“If this administration won’t follow this simple statutory directive,” they wrote, “it is unclear why Congress or the American people should trust this administration to follow any of the other legal limits to Section 702.”
The administration faces a November 6 deadline set by the senators to explain the withholding of the opinion and identify those responsible for the delay.
Until the ruling is released, the full extent of the court’s findings concerning government access to Americans’ communications remains unavailable to the public, even as Congress prepares to reconsider the future of Section 702 surveillance authority.
Original article
Comments