In the post-9/11 political environment, it was unthinkable for members of Congress to challenge the intelligence community’s justifications for expanding or maintaining broad surveillance authority. Lawmakers risked being labeled as a friend to terrorists for failing to align with the Bush administration’s national security priorities.
Russ Feingold knowingly took that risk in October 2001. The Democratic senator from Wisconsin was the only member of the upper chamber to vote against the PATRIOT Act, famously saying in a Senate floor speech: “There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists.”
Feingold wouldn’t be vindicated until after National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed the agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ communications data in 2013. Even though Feingold would lose re-election the following year, the Snowden disclosures marked what seemed like a turning point in the debate over government surveillance.
Yet while civil liberties–focused critiques gradually made their way into the mainstream, intelligence hawks in Congress have continued to set the terms of acceptable debate on privacy issues. This fealty to the national security establishment was on full display during the last fight to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2024, and throughout the ongoing slog to extend the government’s warrantless spying program, which now expires June 12. After two short-term extensions, no path forward to continue the program, either with no changes or with civil liberties reforms, has emerged. But ending the program is not seen as an option either.
Congress seems to be struggling to reconcile concerns over unchecked surveillance with its long-standing deference to the intelligence community.
Hajar Hammado, senior policy adviser at the pro–civil liberties grassroots advocacy organization Demand Progress, thinks something has changed in surveillance politics. “We’re living in a very different world now than we lived in during the last FISA reauthorization debate,” Hammado said. “Americans across the country [are] really concerned about this, and that’s translating into members of Congress … that are themselves very concerned about the future of surveillance, and especially AI-powered surveillance.”
There is indeed a transpartisan consensus of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans on government surveillance, one that is firmly rooted in the need to protect Americans’ constitutional rights in an era of rapid technological advancement. But despite this momentum, Congress seems to be struggling to reconcile concerns over unchecked surveillance with its long-standing deference to the intelligence community.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON MAY 21, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, offered an amendment alongside Congressional Progressive Caucus member Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s markup to block federal highway funding for states and cities that use automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) for any purpose other than tolling.
As my colleague Whitney Curry Wimbish reported, ALPRs snap pictures of vehicles as they drive by, and the pictures go into a searchable database that police officers can use to find where a car was, and when. ALPRs, which have been a fixture of the borderlands for years, take video and stills of passing vehicles, noting the license plate, make, model, and unique identifiers like bumper stickers and dents. Flock Safety, a leading ALPR software company, has gone from operating a few hundred of these devices in January 2024 to nearly 100,000 today.
“Through the massive proliferation of these ALPRs and their centralized AI-powered systems, they became a blatant end-around around the Fourth Amendment, and represent a massive expansion of the surveillance state,” Perry said Thursday.
The Perry-García amendment to the highway bill consisted of a single sentence, but as Wired reported, the measure would have effectively terminated state and local ALPR programs across the country if it had been adopted. Alas, the amendment failed 44-20; García and two other Democrats, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-CA) and Maxwell Frost (D-FL), were the only members of their party to vote in favor of the amendment.
For her part, Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR) called for federal regulation to ensure ALPRs are not being used to surveil Americans in ways that are “inappropriate” and “invasive,” but said the Perry-García amendment “goes a bit far.” She went on to say that “I would love to work with Mr. Perry or anyone else on getting legislation that protects our freedom and liberty.”
Hoyle’s comments came after Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, delivered his own remarks in opposition to the amendment. He recalled how the Washington legislature acted earlier this year to allow the use of ALPRs in limited circumstances, “finding a way through this thicket of issues” by prohibiting data sharing outside of the courts and restricting the locations where law enforcement can use these devices.
“Washington state took the balanced approach to ensure the protection of privacy rights and protection of public safety,” Larsen said. “This amendment does not.”
The single-sentence amendment did not include any carve-outs for law enforcement, which has relied on ALPRs to pinpoint vehicles that have either been stolen or involved in violent crimes. More than a dozen states regulate how law enforcement uses ALPRs.
ALPR misuse has been on the rise in recent years. In at least 16 instances since 2021, law enforcement officials abused their access to these devices to “keep tabs on their romantic interests, including current partners, exes, and even strangers who unwittingly caught their eye in public,” according to the Institute for Justice.
Perry, who first emphasized his support for law enforcement, had some choice words about the uptick in ALPR misuse.
“This is America, and even law enforcement has its guardrails just like the rest of us,” he said. “Unfortunately, we’re all human and we all fall short of the grace of God, and it’s up to policymakers here to make sure the rights of all citizens are protected.”
What’s more, ALPRs and the centralized database they feed into are rife with vulnerabilities. 404 Media reported in December 2025 that at least 60 of Flock’s AI-powered surveillance cameras had been exposed online without password protection. Anyone on the open web with a link could “watch live feeds and access up to 30 days of archived videos, including footage of unattended children on a playground,” Perry said, “which indicates that Flock is no longer just about road traffic.”
Flock is one of at least two vendors expected to bid on the FBI’s recent solicitation for a system capable of providing the agency with nationwide access to ALPRs. The FBI indicated that it intends to tap up to two vendors, which would be tasked with creating a system that would allow the agency to have “near real time” access to ALPR data.
PRIVACY ADVOCATES HAVE TARGETED the government’s collection of U.S. person data under FISA Section 702, urging Congress to impose warrant requirements on the FBI, NSA, and CIA. Intelligence community allies have been reluctant to do so, even when agreeing to civil liberties reforms in other contexts.
On May 13, the House Committee on Appropriations adopted an amendment to the House’s Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill for the 2027 fiscal year that would close the data broker loophole. The amendment, offered by Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), would prevent intelligence and law enforcement agencies from purchasing Americans’ commercial data on the open market in situations where the government would otherwise need a warrant. It passed 32-25.
Voting for Espaillat’s amendment in committee were Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Pete Aguilar (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ed Case (D-HI), Josh Harder (D-CA), Susie Lee (D-NV), Frank Mrvan (D-IN), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)—12 of the 42 Democrats who broke with their party to vote in favor of House Republican leadership’s proposed three-year extension of Section 702 last month with minimal reforms.
If those 12 members are concerned about mass collection of Americans’ personal communications, why didn’t they demand the closure of the data broker loophole in the Section 702 reauthorization? Intelligence hawks have sought to split the two issues, claiming there is “no data acquired under” Section 702 “that is commercial data.” This division makes it more likely that at least one of the methods of warrantless spying on Americans continues.
A growing number of policymakers have come to recognize the mounting threats posed by AI-enabled surveillance.
The temporary extension of the FISA spying program only advanced after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) secured a commitment from Senate Intelligence Committee leaders to demand that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Justice Department declassify a secret March 17 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinion that reportedly found serious issues with the tools intelligence agencies use under Section 702 to collect communications on American citizens. Yet DNI and DOJ have yet to release that opinion in any form, blowing past a proposed deadline.
In a statement released shortly after the deadline passed, Wyden lamented that the Trump administration “has ignored a request from the chair and vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee for basic transparency about FISA surveillance.” A DNI spokesperson recently told Breitbart News the office is working “to expeditiously declassify the opinion, while ensuring the protection of sensitive sources and methods.” FISC opinions with significant legal interpretations are subject to a declassification review, and must be made public within 180 days.
Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee adopted the 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act last month. Wyden was one of three senators on the committee who voted against advancing the bill, which eliminates Senate confirmation for the general counsels of the CIA and DNI, as well as the directors of the National Counterterrorism Center and National Counterintelligence and Security Center, respectively.
“The bill is a dramatic retreat for congressional oversight, at precisely the moment when scrutiny of intelligence community activities is needed most,” Wyden said in a statement. “The committee’s retreat from its long-standing bipartisan approach to whistleblower protection legislation is especially troubling during an administration that commits so many abuses.”
For Hammado and many other privacy advocates, the fight to protect civil liberties in Congress is enormously consequential. A growing number of policymakers have come to recognize the mounting threats posed by AI-enabled surveillance, but those who have taken a stand against the national security establishment still seem to be few and far between.
“At the end of the day, the direction we’re heading in is a mass surveillance dystopia,” Hammado told the Prospect. “I think members of Congress are starting to see that.”
