The House Rules Committee on April 14 advanced a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a power that has long drawn bipartisan criticism since its inception in 2008.

A measure to reauthorize the controversial power passed the committee in a 6–4 vote, from which three Republican panel members—Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)—abstained.

Those same three had delayed the planned consideration of the bill for hours, threatening to join the Democratic minority in voting it down.

The measure under consideration would extend Section 702 powers for 18 months.

While the Tuesday night impasse was ultimately broken, paving the way for a late-night vote after 11:00 p.m. local time, it reveals that long-running GOP discontent with Section 702—which was used against then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane Russia collusion investigation—has not been soothed by Trump’s calls for a “clean” reauthorization of the power.

Trump noted his experience with the law in the past, describing it as “the worst and most illegal abuse of FISA in our Nation’s History,” referencing disclosures that revealed that the FBI had used Section 702 of FISA to spy on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign as part of the Crossfire Hurricane operation.

Nevertheless, Trump said, “When used properly, FISA is an effective tool to keep Americans safe.”

However, several House Republicans remain unconvinced. Of the 24 amendments offered, only one came from a Democratic member. Several of the amendments put forward were sponsored or co-sponsored by Roy.

Section 702 targets intelligence from foreign nationals thought to be outside the United States. Yet it also enables intelligence agencies to gather “incidental” information from Americans who are in contact with targeted non-U.S. persons—all without a warrant.

Although intelligence officials must obtain a warrant to access Americans’ data directly, Section 702 has long caused bipartisan discomfort on Capitol Hill and beyond.

Previously, Congress had approved a two-year extension of the program with 56 major reforms designed primarily to prevent misuse of Americans’ data by agents with access to Section 702 data. It was signed into law by President Joe Biden in April 2024.

Congress imposed new training requirements for those with access to the FISA Section 702 database, stricter requirements for justifying queries into the database, requiring high-level approval to query the information of politically sensitive individuals, and mandatory consequences for willful abuse of the program.

“Since the first day ... my Administration has worked tirelessly to ensure these Reforms are being aggressively executed at every level of the Executive Branch to keep Americans safe, while protecting their sacred Civil Liberties guaranteed by our Great Constitution,” Trump has said.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) signaled opposition on March 17 in posts on X. That same day, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) endorsed reforms to the law in a conversation with reporters.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, told reporters on March 18 that 18 months is too long.

“I hope there’s some room for negotiating a couple of smaller reforms into it to show good faith, that they know there are problems,” he said.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)—like Trump, a past critic of FISA—has backed its renewal.

Ahead of a March 18 briefing, he told reporters that the FBI has boosted compliance with Section 702’s querying procedures—guardrails to shield Americans from FISA wiretapping.

A review of FBI Section 702 compliance from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General identified more than 60,000 noncompliant queries in 2021 alone.

During a March 19 press conference, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “It’s clear that FISA reforms are necessary.

“Every single Democrat will oppose the rule,” Jeffries said, referring to a procedural step that Johnson could take to advance the extension that would come ahead of a final vote.