Jim Jordan Advocates for Overhaul of FISA and Patriot Act, Citing "Broken System"

Washington D.C. – Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has publicly called for a significant dismantling of existing surveillance legislation, including the elimination of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "as it exists" and the overturning of the Patriot Act. This stance, articulated by commentator Jim Pfaff, suggests a push for a "massive cleanup of a broken system" and an effort to "reign in the govt terror campaign of recent years." Jordan's comments highlight a persistent debate over government surveillance powers and civil liberties.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, established in 1978, governs the collection of foreign intelligence information within the United States. It created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee surveillance warrant requests. The Patriot Act, enacted in 2001 following the September 11th attacks, significantly expanded government surveillance powers, including provisions for roving wiretaps and access to business records under Section 215. These measures have been continually scrutinized by civil liberties advocates and some lawmakers.

Representative Jordan, a prominent voice for FISA reform, has been actively involved in legislative efforts to amend the act. He co-authored the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020, which aimed to introduce reforms, though it faced opposition from former President Donald J. Trump, who urged lawmakers to "KILL FISA." More recently, in April 2024, the House passed a two-year reauthorization of FISA's Section 702, a provision allowing warrantless surveillance of foreigners abroad, despite a narrowly defeated bipartisan effort to require warrants for searching Americans' data collected under the program. Jordan and other Judiciary Committee members advocated for this warrant requirement, emphasizing the need to protect Americans' constitutional rights.

The call to "overturn the Patriot Act" and eliminate FISA "as it exists" represents a more radical position than recent reform efforts, which have primarily focused on modifying specific sections like FISA Section 702 rather than outright repeal. Critics of these acts often cite concerns about privacy violations and potential government overreach. The debate reflects a persistent tension between national security imperatives and the protection of individual civil liberties, a balance lawmakers continue to grapple with.