In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
ScheerPost Staff
By now, the script is painfully familiar: warn loudly about authoritarianism, then quietly vote to fund it.
That’s the contradiction animating Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who has decided that the real danger facing Americans isn’t unchecked executive power—it’s letting one of the most abused surveillance authorities in modern history expire without a fight.
The authority in question, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was sold to the public as a tool to monitor foreigners abroad. In practice, it has functioned as a dragnet that sweeps up Americans’ communications—millions of them—without a warrant. Over the years, audits have revealed what even defenders reluctantly call “compliance issues,” a sterile phrase masking a more disturbing reality: repeated, systemic misuse. Protesters, journalists, political donors—none have been off-limits.
And yet, here we are.
Himes’ argument, as reported by WIRED and echoed in public statements, boils down to this: trust us. Or more precisely, trust him. Despite openly acknowledging that the current administration—led by Donald Trump—has shown a willingness to “violate laws and flout norms,” Himes insists he has seen no evidence of abuse of this particular power. Therefore, the power should remain intact.
It’s a remarkable position. Not because it’s bold, but because it collapses under the slightest scrutiny.
For one thing, the very oversight mechanisms Himes cites as safeguards have been systematically dismantled. Internal auditing units that once acted as early warning systems have been shuttered. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, often invoked as a check, has no independent investigative capacity and relies on the same agencies it is meant to oversee to self-report wrongdoing. Congress, meanwhile, is briefed selectively and reacts after the fact—if it reacts at all.
In other words, the referee has left the field, and Himes is assuring everyone the game is still being played fairly.
Critics aren’t buying it. Sean Vitka called Himes’ stance “unforgivably cynical,” accusing him of using his position to “lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda.” That’s not hyperbole—it’s a straightforward reading of the situation. At a moment when civil liberties groups are urging lawmakers to impose basic constitutional guardrails, Himes is reportedly pushing for a “clean” reauthorization, with nothing in return.
No reforms. No warrants. No leverage.
Just faith.
Even some Democrats are breaking ranks. Representative Dan Goldman, who previously supported reauthorization, now says he cannot back the program without detailed accounting of how Americans’ data has been searched under the current administration. His reasoning is simple: laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, and this administration has shown a consistent disregard for both.
That’s the crux of the issue. Section 702 doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists in a political context where federal agencies have reportedly raided journalists, monitored activists, and redirected national security resources toward domestic political targets. It exists in a system where “high-level approval” increasingly means approval from officials whose independence has been eroded or eliminated.
And it exists in a culture of impunity, where abuses—when they are discovered—arrive years too late to matter.
Himes’ defenders might argue that intelligence tools are inherently messy, that speed is essential, that threats are real. All true. But none of that justifies a surveillance regime that treats constitutional protections as optional—especially when workable alternatives exist. Proposed reforms, including warrant requirements with emergency exceptions, would preserve operational flexibility while restoring a baseline of accountability.
That’s what makes this moment so revealing. No one serious is arguing to dismantle intelligence capabilities entirely. The debate is about whether those capabilities should be constrained by law—or by trust.
Himes has made his choice.
In doing so, he’s not just siding with a controversial policy. He’s reinforcing a deeper, more corrosive idea: that when it comes to surveillance, Democrats will talk about civil liberties—but when it counts, they’ll fund the machinery that erodes them.
It’s not just cynical. It’s predictable.
And that may be the most dangerous part of all.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.