Donald Trump's Cowardice Over Warrantless Spying
"I told everybody, 'Do what you want,'" Trump said on Friday night, as he let the deep state win again.

In a social media post on Wednesday afternoon, former President Donald Trump delivered an all-caps message to members of Congress. "KILL FISA," he wrote. "IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS."
Trump was referring to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows intelligence services to scoop up electronic communications between Americans and individuals overseas. Those communications are stored in a massive database—the true extent of which is unknown and perhaps unquantifiable—that is routinely queried by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, giving them a back door to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant.
Trump is right to be mad about how Section 702 has been used, and he's also right that he is far from the only target. In 2021, for example, the FBI used its FISA powers to run more than 3.3 million queries through the Section 702 database. A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report unsealed in May showed that the FBI improperly used its warrantless search powers more than 278,000 times during 2021—targeting "crime victims, January 6th riot suspects, people arrested at a protest in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020," and donors to congressional candidates.
Last week, as Congress was considering the periodic renewal of Section 702, some lawmakers (including some of Trump's closest allies in the House) were pushing for a requirement that law enforcement agencies get a warrant before trolling through the FISA database. That effort failed, 212–212, with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.) casting the tie-breaking vote.
And how did Trump react to all that?
"I'm not a big fan of FISA," the former president reiterated to reporters after meeting with Johnson at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night. "But I told everybody, 'Do what you want.'"
From "KILL FISA" to "Do what you want" in a little over two days. Where's the righteous indignation? Where's the all-caps anger?
Trump's flop on FISA went mostly unnoticed in media coverage over the weekend, perhaps because it was entirely predictable. For a guy who has spent years railing against the abuses of the "deep state," Trump has shockingly little to show for it—and not just because the FBI's budget increased in each of the four years that he oversaw the executive branch.
Perhaps Trump's biggest failure on that front is the very Section 702 warrantless spying program that Congress is reauthorizing. The last reauthorization occurred in early 2018, and it was then-President Donald Trump who put his signature to the bill—a bill that did not include a requirement for law enforcement to get a warrant before accessing Americans' communications. In fact, the Trump administration even outlined ways for the warrantless spying program to continue in the event that Congress did not pass a reauthorization in time.
In a very real and direct way, the abuses of Section 702 that have taken place since 2018—millions of queries run by the FBI, including the spying on January 6 rioters, etc.—occurred because Trump decided at a crucial moment to simply go along with what the deep state wanted.
It's true that this time around, Trump is not president and does not have a role to play in reauthorizing Section 702. But his influence over the Republican Party is significant, and this was an issue in which the reformers fell a single vote short of imposing the warrant requirement. There is also a reconsideration of the vote today, which means Trump's response on Friday (or over the weekend) could have swayed the ultimate outcome.
If nothing else, Trump could at least have gone after Johnson for his decisive vote. As Matt Taibbi noted on Friday, Johnson has failed to articulate a reason why law enforcement needs secret authority to spy on Americans' communications beyond "a secret intelligence briefing, where he learned secret reasons, which he encouraged other members to learn secretly."
Isn't that the epitome of the very "deep state" that Trump supposedly stands athwart yelling "Stop"?
Others who favored reforms were less cowardly about where the blame should be assigned. "The Speaker doesn't always vote in the House, but he was the tie breaker today," Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) posted on X. "He voted against warrants."
"Those 86 Republicans [who voted to block the warrant requirement] should be ashamed of themselves. I say that without any apology," Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas) said on Fox News. He urged the public to "let your members of Congress know before we have to come back on Monday and vote again."
But the Republican with the party's biggest bully pulpit defended Johnson on Friday night and didn't post a peep about Section 702 over the weekend. Keep that in mind the next time Trump invokes the abuses of the deep state and promises that things will be different if voters put him back in the White House.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Did I miss something? Did Trump have a vote in the House or something?
The ire should be at the deep state who convinced Mike Johnson to be a nay vote after demanding FISA reform for years. Instead Eric is blaming someone not in government?
What the actual fuck?
I'm a big fan of the "lesser of two evils" principle. In this case the lesser of the two evils between "Trump or Biden" and "Total Global Thermonuclear War causing the end of all human life on Earth" would be a nuclear war.
Hey, I just watched the Fallout series first season. The results of Nuclear War look REAL bad. Giant fucking cockroaches?!? How is that any fun?
Giant fucking cockroaches will be more fun than early November will be, very soon now!!!
“I told everybody, ‘Do what you want,'” Trump said…
Well OK then, butt did Spermy Daniels says that exact same thing to HIM?!?! And does Trump imagine, in His stunted so-called “mind”, that the entire WORLD is ALSO saying that exact same thing to HIM?!?!
Sorry, I misunderstood your statement below: You DO have a raging case of TDS.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
The same press that had the unmitigated gall to grant itself amnesty in 2021 is casting shade on Trump for not calling for an end to 702 vociferously enough *AFTER IT GOT RENEWED*.
I think the most aggravating aspect of the Charlie Hebdo incident was the narrow scope and/or poorly chosen target.
Wait… what’s the context here???
Is this a passive aggressive “do what you want” after the guys who can change it don’t do what he wanted?
OR
The uncaring “do what you want” in choosing between barely discernibly different paint colors?
Eric has a history of making everything out to be Trump's fault. I don't even have to look at the byline to recognize his articles.
Did I miss something? Did Trump have a vote in the House or something?
Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama didn’t stop it either, the fucks, and Reagan didn’t rise from the grave.
You make a good point. However, none of those are running for President. As the party forerunner he could have made a stand and tried to push the wishy washy Republicans in the right direction. Also it would have clearly indicated his position on the subject.
On a third hand he's having a lot of legal bullshit going on and it's starting to sound serious. He's probably really distracted and maybe just a little pissed off. Reporters ask a stupid question so he give a fuck you answer.
And it's not like we don't know that Trump's opinion doesn't have sway over the House Republican caucus. It was largely Trump who tanked the bipartisan border deal (the one that Republicans themselves had demanded) when he publicly came out against it. This is of course in part because Trump is also the fundraiser-in-chief and all of the lickspittles in the House need his star power to raise money for their Congressional campaigns.
Wait. Youre going with this lie that the border deal which had virtually no GOP support because it legalized Joe's current policies? It had under 10 GOP supporting it because of how bad it was. This is the narrative youre pushing here? Lol.
The bill was always shit. The House was always against it. God damn what a leftist joke you are.
I am talking about the bipartisan border deal that Republicans demanded as a condition of getting a vote on aid to Ukraine, that Republicans negotiated (in good faith?) with Democrats on, that Republicans and Democrats both agreed to present as their compromise at the end of those negotiations, and then when Trump said "this bill is awful", Republicans en masse walked away from it. I am talking about that bipartisan border bill.
The border bill the House wants is HR2. They passed it retard. They never wanted the negotiated in in the senate. Do you just blindly push any leftist narrative?
The only GOP person who negotiated was Lankford and. That doesn't mean the entire GOP wanted it. Stop pushing ignorant leftist narratives.
Lol.
He did make a stand. Read the article. He relented after the vote and when he shifted to a campaign bill argument that Johnson is heading.
Try again.
Exactly!!!
When Trump pushes for the legislature to do something, he’s a shadow dictator. When Trump tells legislators to do what they want, he’s not keeping them in line with his platform.
Seems fair (to some).
DIYDo
DIYDont
if Trump walked on water they would say he doesn't know how to swim.
They'd probably say he's just too fat to sink
There is no point in listening to what Trump says. It could not matter less what Trump says. It is a VERY short list of things he actually did while he was President and very little of that was good. This time next year he will either be living in the White House again or someone else will be or no one will be President of the United States for one reason or another. It is a matter of total indifference to me which of those possibilities is the outcome.
a VERY short list of things he actually did while he was President and very little of that was good.
- North Korea rapprochement
- Replaced the crappy NAFTA with a far better USMCA
- The unprecedented Abraham accords and Saudi/Israel rapprochement (Imagine the press if a Democrat had arranged this)
- A deal between Serbia and Kosovo
- The First Step Act
- Pulled out of negotiations on the stupefyingly bad Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
- Pulled out of the Paris Accords
- NO NEW WARS
All in four years while fighting off investigations based on fraudulent Clinton campaign material, and a phony impeachment for calling for an investigation into shit Biden had actually done.
Stop eating so much CNN. It's bad for the brain.
No tax cuts?
Wait why is USMCA good and the TPP bad?
-- Cut quite a few EPA regs
-- De Vos
-- Kavanaugh
-- Gorsuch
-- Barret
-- Pia
OK, MWAocdoc, prove you have some honest gripes about Trump, not just a raging case of TDS: Give us the actions of any POTUS in the last hundred years who can match that list.
Let's see. One candidate at worst (if media reporting is accurate and complete) is ambivalent about FISA and other government security agency rules, and Congressional actions to limit their power. The other candidate clearly supports federal spying on Americans, at least the "MAGA" type.
Now, which candidate will Reason editors strategically vote for?
They learned their lessons from 2020. It will be even more vague on what their actions will be. But I think at least half pull for Joe.
The other candidate clearly supports federal spying on Americans
spoiler alert: they both do. which president most recently renewed FISA Section 702 again?
And here again Trump is held to a very low standard. It is not difficult to see that Trump's opposition to Section 702 here is almost entirely self-interested and not based on principle.
lol you know principles.
“which president most recently renewed FISA Section 702 again?”
Trump in 2018, before the pandemic and the ongoing lawfare. You could say he saw the light afterwards.
Trump initially wanted to ban “assault weapons”. Then his cabinet explained to him that those guns actually ARE banned. Once he was informed of the technical distinctions, he gave up on that goal. Despite his bluster, he does occasionally learn.
If he wins, Trump will authorize for FISA reforms. That probably owes more to his ego than principles, but that’s still likely. So no, they’re not both in favor of FISA. Democrats largely voted against reforms, after masquerading themselves as champions of civil liberties during the Bush years. Most republicans voted for it, led by MAGA republicans. In 2005, this would not have happened.
So like Eric, you’re not saying the forest for the trees. Let me remind Reason of the lack of “righteous anger” over the Laken Riley murder and assassination of police. They hardly covered the death of the NY officer.
If he wins, Trump will authorize for FISA reforms.
He will? Well, maybe. Until someone comes along and strokes his ego and tells him that he can use FISA to spy on people for HIS benefit. That is the problem with having no principles. He will do whatever happens to flatter his ego in the moment, instead of what is the right thing to do.
When did Trump use state surveillance power to illegally monitor his political enemies? Like how the FBI lied to place surveillance on Carter Page? Biden with several prosecutors
Trump has an ego, but he’s willing to listen to arguments. That’s why he didn’t jump on the gun control bandwagon.
Did I mention that most MAGA republicans voted for reform, while democrats voted against it? Trump would not have shed any tears if his side prevailed.
You have TDS. In your view, we can’t criticize Biden for spending because “Trump was a big spender too”. We’re not allowed to observe that Trump was nevertheless more economically center right and his policies were arguably better than Biden’s. You’re fixated on Trump and holding him accountable, so you constantly use him as some litmus test, benchmark or baseline to launch equivalency game, regardless of scope and context.
Trump being ambivalent or politically coy about abortion of FISA is not even in the same level of democrats actually voting AGAINST reforms, meaning they’re now Bush republicans from the early 2000s they used to spit on. They would tell Jewish students to take menorahs home but commit security to monitor pro terrorist display. They railed against white supremacy but now openly sympathize with racist terrorists. They champion criminal justice reform but jail people over memes. Who abandons principles to serve agendas more than the left, who run 90% of the nation?
Again, you have TDS. You and Sarc. No one here hates Biden like you guys hate on Trump. You guys are often the first to actively involve Trump into the comment section before ANYONE else. He cannot hurt you. The democrats killed FISA reform. Repeat that a few times.
This article has both opinions and self referential links. Why are you not attacking it?
Because that was just a lie of convenience for him at the moment. Aside from being a politruk who will say anything to get a win, he's a pretty horrible person.
Just wanted to see what his next excuse for his behaviors would be.
You're right! It's also an opinion piece and nobody is under any illusion that it is anything but an opinion piece! Boehm's defenders around here aren't going around saying "but it's a news article with facts, you can't argue against it!!!!!!!"
It's not presenting a balanced perspective. It's not giving the pro-FISA argument. If I wanted to be fully informed on FISA, I would have to read more than just this article or other articles in the same vein. I would have to, you know, step out of the bubble and seek out other sources. It might be an AP or Reuters article. It might even be *gasp* a Daily Beast or Salon article. But it would have to be more than just articles written by Boehm or people like Boehm.
Do you understand now, why, when you cite nothing but right-wing sources and one-sided opinion articles, and demand that everyone take your articles at face value and accept the facts in those very biased articles uncritically, that rational and sane people laugh at you as nothing but a partisan?
Jeff. Why this strawman? Do you think you are convincing anybody that if you yell opinion piece facts disappear? Lol.
Do you understand now, why, when you cite nothing but right-wing sources and one-sided opinion articles, and demand that everyone take your articles at face value and accept the facts in those very biased articles uncritically, that rational and sane people laugh at you as nothing but a partisan?
This is false as you can see from just this mornings roundup. You were there. This is a false strawman. Youre desperate to rationalize why it is valid to dismiss any articles you dislike and to hide behind a wall of claims only legacy media is a valid source. It is hilarious how desperate you are to rationalize your dishonesty as honest. Pathetic, but hilarious.
You still have yet to counter a single fsct you have tried to dismiss facially. Ironically you dont hold the same standard to your choice of leftist narrative pieces even praising Dark Brandon.
Oh bullshit. Take for example, when you continually trot out those statistics from FAIR about immigrant welfare usage. I and others point out all the time how the statistics are misleading, they compare apples and oranges, and moreover the organization from which they come has a definite axe to grind against immigration and are never going to present an honest case because that is not their agenda. You habitually ignore all of these very legitimate criticisms and just continue to post those same statistics over and over again.
When are you going to accept legitimate, valid criticism of the 'facts' that you present?
Lol. When did you point out they were misleading? They are straight forward from the government. How is it misleading? Because it doesn’t use the narrative you want? Because it factually shows the calculated costs? Then your counter to it was a 30 year old policy paper from Brookings and an economics paper from a prediction model. It was fucking hilarious. Hard calculated numbers vs opinion and biased models. It was fucking hilarious.
I should also say it wasn't even FAIR. Lol. Youre such a fucking ignorant moron you can't even remember the source you want to attack.
The regime media assholes are getting desperate.
>>Where's the righteous indignation? Where's the all-caps anger?
you guys have mirrors @Reason?
I think you're being a bit presumptuous about mirrors, souls, the recently deceased, and the general state of legacy media.
this whole fucking place should be allcaps indignation 24/7. mho
edit: your response was lolz.
Boehm. The first Reason journalist to come out of the closet and proclaim his TDS by magically blaming Trump for ... "But it was largely Democrats who sank the warrant requirement."
It's the Deep State, man. They're going to get you on their side one way or another.
Do actual humans ever contribute to this skin suit of libertarian thought known as Reason, except as an employment project for shitty liberal arts grads?
Rich Uncle Charles Koch told them all no bonuses this year if Trump wins.
Joe Biden to Iran
"I don't want you to shoot missiles at Israel but if you must I want you to only shoot at their military bases ok"
Replace Israel with Mexico.
Any righteous anger at Reason?
...
It might mean he has less clout over Republicans in Congress than he wants people to think. Or maybe there's a bombshell in that secret briefing.
As little control as Trump has over his mouth, he could never keep a secret big enough to justify warrantless surveillance of American citizens in the USA. If there is such a secret - that's unbelievable to me. The FISA court is bad enough, a secret court that Congress created to sign secret warrants, and did not give a means to check the truthfulness of the application or punish those federal agents who've been caught lying to the court. I don't believe there is or ever will be a legitimate reason to avoid going even to it.
Hey, Eric, you slimy piece of shit, who did you vote for? Get fucked, asshole.
Regretfully and strategically Joe Biden.
How about blaming those who actually voted to renew spying on American citizens?
But then the Marxist apologist would have to blame Democrats as well and he can't do that
Damned if he pushes for Election Integrity.
Damned if he doesn't push hard enough for FISA warrants in its aftermath.
And that is why terms like TDS come-in to explain this phenomenon.
A good constitutional attorney should be able to easily deem the concept of “Secret Laws” as blatantly unconstitutional.
“Secret Laws” are not a wartime authority and not legal under the U.S. Constitution or the American Oath of Office.
Going back hundreds of years in Europe and America, the premise of “Law & Order” is that laws are posted (or publicly advertised) so that citizens can attempt to comply with the publicly posted laws.
There is no provision of the U.S. Constitution that allows “Secret Law” even during wartime. The details of secret operations can be classified secret, but not the law itself. Americans have a right to know what every law says and means.
Voters can’t self-govern with foreign style Secret Laws. This would be a big win for real Americans and should be an easy U.S. Supreme Court win!