

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Zach Lowe (Feingold) - (202) 224-8657
Max Gleischman (Durbin) - (202) 228-5244
Patrick Devlin (Tester) - (202) 224-2644
Marissa Padilla (Udall) - (202) 224-6621
Jude McCartin (Bingaman) - (202) 224-1804
Will Wiquist (Sanders) - (202) 228-6357
Jesse Broder Van Dyke (Akaka) - (202) 224-7045
Mary Conley (Wyden) - (202) 224-3789
U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin
(D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron
Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to fix problems with surveillance
laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens. The
Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act
would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other
surveillance authorities to protect Americans' constitutional rights,
while preserving the powers of our government to fight terrorism.
The
JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of
Americans' personal records, the "sneak and peek" search
provision of the PATRIOT Act, "John Doe" roving wiretaps and other
overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act,
passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing
"bulk collection" of the contents of Americans' international
communications, and prohibiting "reverse targeting" of innocent
Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National
Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General
issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization
of the USA PATRIOT Act.
"Every
single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence
officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe," said Feingold.
"But with the PATRIOT Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity
to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all. The JUSTICE
Act permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a
framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our
government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil
liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. When he was in the Senate,
President Obama was a strong ally on these issues, and I look forward to
working with his administration to find common ground on commonsense
reforms."
"The Government must
use every legal tool available to protect us from the threat of global
terrorism. But when those tools override Americans' fundamental rights
and liberties, we run the very real risk of never getting them back," Durbin
said. "As we move toward reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act,
we're proposing commonsense changes to better protect our most basic
constitutional rights. Our bill strikes a careful balance between the law
enforcement powers needed to combat terrorism and the legal protections
required to safeguard American liberties."
"Like a lot of
Montanans, I have serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act and how it was
implemented," Tester said. "What this bill will do is
add commonsense so we can fight terrorism without ignoring the Constitution and
without invading the privacy and civil rights of law-abiding Americans."
"In
recent years, I believe our government has failed to protect the constitutional
right to privacy for American citizens," Tom Udall said.
"The JUSTICE Act strikes the right balance between respecting the needs
of our law enforcement to pursue suspected terrorists and upholding the rights
of law-abiding citizens to live free from unnecessary government intrusion in
their lives. I firmly believe we can keep our nation secure without infringing
on the inherent rights of the American people. "
"We must provide law
enforcement with the tools they need to protect our country, and do so in a way
that also safeguards Americans' rights. This legislation addresses
both of these important objectives by ensuring our security and upholding our
cherished constitutional protections," Bingaman said.
"Every American
understands that we have got to do every single thing we can to protect the
American people from terrorist attacks. There is no debate about that. Some of
us believe, however, that we can be successful in doing that while we uphold
the rule of law, while we uphold the Constitution of this country, which has
made us the envy of the world," Sanders said.
Senator Akaka said: "The JUSTICE Act will allow intelligence
agents to monitor terrorism suspects while putting checks in place to ensure
that law-abiding Americans' privacy and civil liberties are
protected."
"The
JUSTICE Act rights some of the basic wrongs of the PATRIOT
Act, which became a poster child for the Bush Administration's lack of
respect for Americans' privacy rights," said Wyden.
"This bill is designed to keep every law-abiding American free from
arbitrary government surveillance. At the same time, it gives law
enforcement the agility needed to go after actual terrorists and spies who
would do our country harm."
Fact Sheet JUSTICE Act Of 2009
The
Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE)
Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA
Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional
rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to
fight terrorism and collect intelligence.
Title I - Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of
Americans' Records
Sections
101-106 - National Security Letters
The
bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can
obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable
safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide
meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag
orders.
Section 107 - Section 215 Orders
The bill would reauthorize
the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional
checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of
people who have some connection to terrorism or
espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial
review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.
Title II -
Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans' Homes
Section 201 -
"Sneak & Peek" Searches
The
bill would retain the Patriot Act's authorization of "sneak and
peek" criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision
that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It
would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a
statutory exclusionary rule.
Title III - Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of
Americans' Communications
Section
301 - FISA Roving Wiretaps
The
bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of
"John Doe" roving
wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped.
It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving
wiretap before beginning surveillance.
Section 302 - Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices
The bill would retain the
Patriot Act's expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to
cover electronic communications, but would allow
pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It
would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these
authorities.
Section 303 - Telecommunications Immunity
The bill would repeal the
retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.
Section 304 - Bulk Collection
The bill retains the new
warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the
government from using that law to conduct "bulk collection" of the
contents of communications, including all communications between the United
States and the rest of the world.
Section 305 - Reverse Targeting
The bill would ensure that
the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are
not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.
Section 306 - Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information
The bill would limit the
government's use of information about Americans obtained under FISA
Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful,
while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in
appropriate cases.
Section 307 - Protections for International Communications of
Americans
The bill would amend the FISA
Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism
that the government knows have one end in the United States.
Section 308 - Computer Trespass
The bill would guard against
abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows
computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes
of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their
systems.
Title IV -
Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight
Section 401 - FISA
Public Reporting
The bill would require
limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.
Section 402 - Use of
FISA Evidence
The bill would apply the
Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases,
and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil
cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to
information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.
Section 403 -
Nationwide Court Orders
The bill would permit a
recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district
where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.
Title V -
Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations
Section 501 - Domestic Terrorism
The Patriot Act's
overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil
disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the
qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal
crime of terrorism.
Section 502 - Material Support
The bill would amend the
overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by
specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used
for terrorist activity.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.