Trump Is Trying To Fire Most of the White House's Civil Liberties Watchdog
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should be Trump's ally in a battle against the deep state. So why is he undermining it?

President Donald Trump is reportedly seeking to ax most of the members of an internal watchdog agency that flags potential privacy violations by federal surveillance programs—including the government's warrantless electronic communication spying scheme.
Three members of the five-person Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board received letters this week telling them to resign or prepare to be fired by Thursday, The New York Times reports. Democratic presidents appointed the three individuals targeted for termination, and their departure would mean the board does not have a sufficient quorum to operate.
The lone Republican-appointed member of the board has not been asked to resign, the Times notes. The fifth seat on the board is currently vacant.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but was hobbled by a lack of a quorum and other procedural issues during much of the Bush administration and into the early years of the Obama administration. Despite that, the board produced in 2014 the first comprehensive review of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program—a report that confirmed much of what Edward Snowden revealed to the public a year earlier.
Since then, the board has continued to advocate for greater transparency and accountability in federal spying programs. The PCLOB can also review proposed anti-terrorism legislation, regulations, and policies, and it advises the White House about potential civil liberties violations.
The board has a full-time president and four part-time members who serve staggered six-year terms. All members are appointed by the president and are subject to Senate confirmation. That means Trump likely has the power to dismiss members at will, even if their terms are not complete.
Even so, civil liberties advocates both inside and outside the government said the sudden dismissal of three members of the PCLOB was a worrying sign.
"This is an effort to shoot the watchdog," Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for privacy online, said in a statement to Reason. "President Trump's attempt to expel members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a brazen effort to destroy an independent watchdog that has protected Americans and exposed surveillance abuse under Democratic and Republican administrations alike."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), a longstanding critic of the federal surveillance state, told the Times that Trump was "purging" the board and "kneecapping one of the only independent watchdogs over government surveillance who could alert Congress and the public about surveillance abuses by his administration."
It remains unclear whether the Trump administration plans to appoint new members to fill what might soon be four vacancies on the PCLOB, or leave the positions open and effectively shut the entity down. The latter option would certainly be a bad look for a president who has campaigned on a promise to combat the so-called "deep state" and curtail the government's spying efforts. The PCLOB ought to be an ally in accomplishing those goals.
Of course, Trump did sign a bill reauthorizing the government's Section 702 warrantless electronic surveillance program in 2018, so his commitment to surveillance reform is not a firm one.
"I sincerely hope that President Trump will live up to his commitments to rein in surveillance abuses," wrote Ashley Gorski, a senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a post on X. "Purging the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board—an independent, bipartisan watchdog agency—is not the way."
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
Does everyone know how many versions of "Cry me a river" are on YouTube?
There are three different songs called “Cry Me A River”, and one of them has been recorded by 716 different artists.
Is the internet fantastic, or what?
GFY - I am 99.99% certain there is more to this, such as - what were these 3 Obama/Biden lackeys’ stance on the Disinformation Czar and all the censoring of social media? Or Crossfire Hurricane and Lawfare? I’ll bet you anything they stood by in tacit agreement, which makes them unfit for this office
“what were these 3 Obama/Biden lackeys’ stance on the Disinformation Czar and all the censoring of social media?”
Wait, I didn’t rtfa, but did Boehm not even cover their positions while defending their positions IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? This rag will have absolutely zero credibility at the end of this term.
That ship has already sailed with COVID.
Notice how Boehm was conspicuously silent on the three departing members...who they were, who appointed them, their public pronouncements?
There is a (D)ifferent reason for that.
Any Biden appointees wouldn't have been on the board during Crossfire Hurricane, unless whoever operated the "Biden" administration simply re-appointed the Obama appointees. WIth 6-year terms, it's almost certain that one seat on the board was held by someone appointed during trump 45 and replaced by the following regime, unless that's the empty seat.
Since CH was run though FISA and FBI/DOJ handlers, it might have been classified under a different authority than NSA section 702 surveilience, and might not have been accessed by, or even visible to this "watchdog". If that's the case, then either those operating the watchdog were negligent and should be fired, or they looked away intentionally for political reasons and should be fired.
If the board has oversight on classified NSA data (possibly even "five eyes" feeds?) but isn't given access to FISA, then the structure of their group needs to be re-worked and most/all of the current members replaced anyway.
Any oversight organization which is supposed to prevent (or at least shine a light on) abuses of government surveillance power which didn't catch onto the use of a classified "star chamber" type system to surveil the Presidential candidate from the "opposition" to the incumbent party, and never made any formal inquiry when it was found to have involved misconduct by the FBI in obtaining warrants isn't doing its job. Whether that failure is somehow built into the structure of the review board, or the miss was due to either incompetence or bias on the part of the people involved is only relevant in that it matters to what the appropriate corrective action would be; there's no version of going forward which would include the existing membership to carry on as usual.
Assuming the one "Republican" on the panel who wasn't fired was appointed under trump 45, that person is nearing the end of their term anyway, and depending on the timing of it all, firing them vs letting the current appointment expire with the board inactive might be a distinction without much of a difference. There can't be much, if any stigma attached to Biden appointees released at the onset of a new trump administration, especially not in the partisan catering K-street operations, or "white shoe" law firms they're likely to be cashing six-figure signing bonuses from this time next month.
They did not seem terribly useful his first term. Not sure why things would change now.
The what now? A board that was created after 911 and issued a report in 2014 of stuff we already knew, you say? Yeah, DOGE them.
FTFY
Which had nothing to do with Civil Liberties and everything to do with revamping society.
Couldn't tell one existed.
Can’t blame him (Trump), they were worthless I’m sure. If Trump is serious about anyone’s privacy aside from his own, hopefully he’ll put in some people who are worth a crap.
Trump doesn't need a watchdog agency. We can trust him.
Because as absolutely everyone knows it has become a Deep State protection agency that spends more time covering up DOJ misbehavior than exposing, and I suspect that Boehm knows that too.
Not you though, your ignorance is genuine because you are a absolute fucking idiot.
What's the going rate for maple whine up there in Canukistan?
Ideas™ !
If I wanted a shitty comeback from you, I'd make White Mike fart. Now go suck back another bottle of English Leather and fuck off, loser.
Plus, Sarc is never here anymore.
Sarc demands no accountability for democrat government workers. Zero. None.
But he is not a Democrat and is rarely here.
Jesse makes very fine arguments against the voices in his head.
You're not in his head, attention whore.
A board that was created after 9/11, produced a report in 2014 telling us what we already knew thanks to Snowden, and didn’t have any teeth to actually stop the Obama administration from continuing to do what was revealed? Gonna be honest, not even sure why they exist in the first place.
And what use is a "Civil Liberties Watchdog" which failed to bark at either Crossfire Hurricane or any of the Twitter files abuses? admittedly, the latter was at best tangential to their portfolio, but my god...
Either they were irredeemably partisan, or they were intentionally blindered to abuses of the FISA system, or they were flat fucking incompetent. Any way you slice it, they weren't getting the job done in a serious way and as such, their absence is at worst a lateral move from their continued operation. Provided that absence is temporary, and they're replaced with some kind of operation which has a chance at success. Arguably, the IGs in each cabinet-level agency are supposed to be doing that anyway, which would make this panel yet another failed redundancy in a poorly configured system.
Trump Is Trying To Fire Most of the White House's Civil Liberties Watchdog
You realize you said 'watchdog' and not 'guard dog', right?
You mean the liberal activists in the doj who went after pro life protestors? But ignored arson against pro life centers?
Ironically chip roy just introduced legislation to repeal the FACE act.
Stop calling yourselves libertarian when you defend this shit.
This defend the abusive deep state shit is getting old Eric.
Ironically chip roy just introduced legislation to repeal the FACE act.
Good. At least one thing that I can support from them. The FACE act was always about using federal law enforcement for grand-standing on the issue of abortion. The crimes that were covered by the FACE act should be handled at the state and local level anyway.
It was so much dreamier when Milei did it.
“Democratic presidents appointed the three individuals targeted for termination”
Boehm answered his own question in the second paragraph, so that was a good time to stop reading.
Where the fuck were you during his first term Boehm? Not sure how you missed it, but they even had their own hashtag, #resist. Anyone in the federal bureaucracy appointed by a Democrat that can be fired should be. Their only purpose would be to undermine Trump and the policies people voted for.
Fucking hack.
I'm starting to see a trend here that might indicate that some of the Reason writers are intentionally positing silly questions to provoke a reaction and generate interest and discussion, which they then walk back later in the same article to avoid being accused of double-plus unthink from we, the Thoughtcrime Police.
Oh KMW definitely has someone writing clickbait headlines, that much has been obvious for years.
You hoping someone has the courage to stop him, Boehm?
Reluctantly, strategically.
We seriously do not have an article about the social media EO yet, and we’re getting an article defending three bureaucrats?
Oh, that’s right, Reason defended what was happening with social media that Trump ended.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should be Trump's ally in a battle against the deep state. So why is he undermining it?
Why is Trump undermining the useless security guard that hasn't stopped or thwarted a single crime, robbery, theft, assault or murder?
Yeah, that's an EXCELLENT question.
It’s like, having already been president before, Trump has some insight into what needs to go.
But Boehm knows better.
Wait, wait, wait... wait. There's a Deep State?
I mean, I remember The PCLOB clearly as part of the checks and balances created by our FF; legislative, executive, judicial, PCLOB. And I'm sure the occupants of this oversight board were on my ballot. I'm just surprised to learn that there might be other whole boards or swaths of unelected bureaucrats who might be secretly running things outside the public view.
We're doomed .... DOOMED I tell you!
Looks like he's just trying to fire the members of the opposite party, not get rid of the whole board. After all he kept the Republican member. That is just SOP for any new administration. And like the others said I am not sure what value this board brought to the table.
There are many political positions like what you're talking about. But that's not what he's doing.
There are positions that are supposed to be merit based, not loyalty based. So the people in those positions often work through multiple administrations.
He's cleaning that shit up and making sure it's all political.
Well in this case, he may be simply revealing what already is, instead of hiding behind a fiction of 'merit-based' appointment.
Except for the part where they work over many administrations doing their job without political influence.
I agree that that can be the case for some agencies or boards. I am not sure that that is the case for this particular board.
It's all political now. And probably always has been even when people pretended it wasn't.
He's getting rid of the Dems. He doesn't have forever, and there will be roadblocks. He needs to work as fast as possible to purge as many of these enemies of liberty as he can. Seriously, a modern Democrat in government is a totalitarian until proven otherwise.
Not sure why Congress even bothered with giving them 6 year terms when the new SOP is blanket firings.
The whole concept has a big flaw: "Hey, POTUS, appoint some people to call you out when you violate civil liberties."
We know how much you, Jeff, and sarc love the deep state mike.
They are precious humans who deserve their government jobs. Rising above silly politics and pure of heart.
Some jobs are supposed to be politically independent. Like running the Fed for example. The idea is that they, like judges with lifetime appointments, are not to be swayed by political winds.
Trump and his defenders want the opposite. They're convinced that everyone is against them, so they want to do a purge and replace everyone with loyalists.
Not caring that the next Democratic administration will do the same thing.
But, of course, they aren’t above political winds.
If they’re supposed to be politically independent, then they should be names that are drawn at random (not that it needs to exist in the first place).
"Members of the Board shall be selected solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, expertise in civil liberties and privacy, and relevant experience, and without regard to political affiliation, but in no event shall more than 3 members of the Board be members of the same political party. The President shall, before appointing an individual who is not a member of the same political party as the President, consult with the leadership of that party, if any, in the Senate and House of Representatives."
Looks like he can't appoint three Republican replacements. Might have to find a Kool-Aid drinking MAGA nominally-non-Republican for that third slot. Tulsi's already got another job.
Maybe this unpaid powerless soon-to-be-DOGEd board is Angela McArdle's big chance at glory.
Totally makes you look like not a Democrat Mike. Lol.
All Republicans bad. Dem appointees good.
Or a libertarian. How fun that would be!
How likely would that ever be?
And in other news: Thomas Massie removed from powerful House Rules Committee for insisting that Congress follow the rules.
Trump fires some worthless gov't bureaucrats, Eric shits himself.
So are most od the leftists on the thread. The sanctity of dem appointed federal workers must not be questioned.
Nor the cop union regarding the pardons to the J-6 protesters FOUR YEARS LATE!
'Libertarians' mad Trump shrinks the size government seems like an odd take from the mag that ran a whole litnay of 'abolish' articles.
Libertarians often ask "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Well here's an attempt at just that.
It's no surprise that you and other Trump defenders attack those who don't celebrate its demise. You don't want Him to consider civil liberties. You guys call that shit "leftist."
Poor sarc. Cry harder.
Did you even know this board existed until this article? Did you know that one of the seats had been vacant for years? I’ll admit I didn’t.
But that begs the question, where was the article decrying the board being lopsided towards the Democrats for years?
Abolish Everything (Except The White House Civil Liberties Watchdog)!
If the board "should be his allies", doesn't it make sense for Trump to remove people who would use their position on the board to oppose him, and (eventually) replace them with people who will actually act as his allies?
I mean, of course his longstanding political opponents -- which include all three* people actually quoted in the article as opposing this move -- are upset that he's purging Democrats from a board with the power to "access all relevant executive agency records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and any other relevant materials, including classified information" and "interview, take statements from, or take public testimony from any Executive Branch officer or employee". That's a great position from which to dig up opposition dirt on a Trump Administration.
But your alleged take, Mr. Boehm, is that "The PCLOB ought to be an ally in accomplishing [Trump's] goals." Isn't it, then, a good idea if Trump re-staffs it so that it actually is such an ally?
* https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-democracy-and-technology/ lists the Center for Democracy and Technology a "Left-Wing Technology Advocacy Group". The other quoted persons are a Democratic senator and an ACLU spokesperson. I mean, seriously, not even a Cato Institute quote?
Because over the last two decades, the term "civil liberties" has become an obfuscation of what it's supposed to protect, and instead shields bad government actors while targeting "nazis" and "xenophobes" (which exist only in their fevered imaginations) in the name of promoting wokeness.
For example: one cannot be a supporter of illegal immigrants and a promoter of civil liberties. Not by the traditional definition of the term. That's why they invert it, bastardize it, and then weaponize it against Joe American as if he's the real problem.
I love and am a stanch defender of civil liberties. I have stopped, however, pretending that Marxists/Leftists/Reason Staff mean ANYTHING close to the same thing when they use the term.
I fail to see how any agency staffed entirely by political appointees who serve at the pleasure of whoever is the current president can possibly be considered either independent or bipartisan.
And I'm sure you remember the storm their protesting the lawfare attacks on Trump made national news, right? RIGHT?!
Stuff it up your ass Boehm; your head and your TDS would like more company.
And then fuck off and die, in the hopes someone who has a passing acquaintance to libertarianism takes your place.
If not, please still fuck off and die.
Well, it used to be that men could be women, so - - - - - - -
Well, if they serve at the pleasure of the president, then they would be responsive to the election results. And you can't have a bureaucracy that responds to the wishes of the people because that would start to look like democracy. And we can't have that because . . . what's the point of having a bureaucracy if they can't lord over the voters? If you went to the right college, you'd understand.
"At 5 p.m. Wednesday, all federal employees in diversity, equity and inclusion roles were placed on paid administrative leave."
----WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-executive-order-dei-federal-government-workers-paid-leave-dd2b3d6f?
They're all going to be fired. Every last one of them. I guess the policing thought crime business ain't what it used to be.
It's not enough to just watch them get canned. They're going to sneak into all sorts of institutions and companies, so everyone concerned about freedom needs to watch where they go and monitor them.
I read an article--from some time ago--about how the whole profession of Chief Diversity Officer for corporate DEI programs is collapsing.
"New analysis from employment data provider Live Data Technologies shows that chief diversity officers have been more vulnerable to layoffs than their human resources counterparts, experiencing 40% higher turnover. Their job searches are also taking longer.
“I got to 300 applications and then I stopped tracking,” says Stephanie Lubin, who was laid off from her role as diversity head at Drizly, an online alcohol marketplace, in May following the company’s acquisition by Uber. In one case, Lubin says she went through 16 rounds of interviews for a role she didn’t get, and says she is now planning to pivot out of DEI work.
"The number of CDO searches is down 75% in the past year, says Jason Hanold, chief executive of Hanold Associates Executive Search, which works with Fortune 100 companies to recruit HR and DEI executives, among other roles. Demand is the lowest he has seen in his 30 years of recruiting.
----WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer-cdo-business-corporations-e110a82f
Nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
They need to be tagged and tracked...and I know just where to clip the tag.
Despite that, the board produced in 2014 the first comprehensive review of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program—a report that confirmed much of what Edward Snowden revealed to the public a year earlier.
Apropos of my comment above.
This whole department should be nuked from orbit.
Only fire them? I thought they said they were going to line em all up and, well, fire at them.
>The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should be Trump's ally in a battle against the deep state.
Why would you think that?
They haven't been onboard with battling the deep state during their whole existence.
Is this one of those 'they can't be fascists because they have 'anti-fascist' in their name' things?
The whole thing has been basically useless because 'of procedural issues' but sure, let's keep paying these guys to do . . . nothing.
I mean, their signature accomplishment is to put out a report that confirms what Snowden told everyone - not to dig in and find that stuff out on their own, but to jump in afterwards.
four potential friendly seats sit open for a moment I fail to see the problem.
Libertarians for government bureaucracy?
Seriously Boehm?
Is there any chance we can get rid of the patriot act? Just asking
That could be the action that triggers Trump's assassination.
The fact that the Patriot Act still exists should give all Americans the urge to crap our pants in a state of collective disappointment.