SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 30 2022, 05:27pm EDT
Contact:
Maria Langholz, maria@demandprogress.org, (715) 209-6463
20+ Groups Call on Senate to Protect 4th Amendment Rights, Applaud Introduction of Wyden-Daines Amendment
Following bombshell news that the United States military is paying for access to a "super majority of all activity on the internet," 22 organizations including the ACLU, Americans for Prosperity,
WASHINGTON
Following bombshell news that the United States military is paying for access to a "super majority of all activity on the internet," 22 organizations including the ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, Demand Progress Action, Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, and Wikimedia Foundation sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee calling on Chairman Jack Reed (D-RI) and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) to preserve bipartisan transparency language in the House-passed NDAA that would require the Department of Defense to disclose which components are purchasing access to Americans' internet activity and other records without a court order.
The House adopted this provision without opposition thanks to the leadership of Reps. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Davidson (R-OH). The letter also urges the Senate to adopt the companion amendment introduced by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Daines (R-MT), which Sens. Brown (D-OH), Hirono (D-HI), Lee (R-UT), Markey (D-MA), Paul (R-KY), and Schatz (D-HI) have cosponsored.
In September, Vice revealed that -- without any court orders or Congressional oversight -- "[m]ultiple branches of the U.S. military have bought access to a powerful internet monitoring tool that claims to cover over 90 percent of the world's internet traffic, and which in some cases provides access to people's email data, browsing history, and other information such as their sensitive internet cookies."
"This amendment is critical to enabling Congressional, judicial, and public oversight because this unconstitutional checkbook surveillance currently occurs without any Congressional or judicial authorization or oversight whatsoever," said Demand Progress senior policy counsel Sean Vitka. "This rapidly expanding practice represents an enormous and irreversible threat to constituents' right to privacy. By preserving the modest transparency requirement included in the Jacobs-Davidson amendment, we can illuminate to what extent the government is buying its way around the Fourth Amendment. All Senators should support the Senate companion introduced by Senators Wyden and Daines. he Senate Armed Services Committee must keep this language in the NDAA."
The Letter
September 28, 2022
The Honorable Jack Reed
Chairman
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Adam Smith
Chairman
House Committee on Armed Services
2216 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable James Inhoff
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mike Rogers
Ranking Member
House Committee on Armed Services
2216 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Preserve Jacobs-Davidson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Rogers:
We write to urge you to preserve in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA) an amendment offered by Representatives Jacobs and Davidson, which the House of Representatives adopted en bloc without opposition, and which Senators Wyden and Daines have offered in the Senate. This amendment brings critical transparency to a vital public debate.
This amendment would provide Congress and the public with only the information necessary to assess the profound privacy consequences of the Department of Defense buying its way around the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, it requires the Department of Defense to disclose which components are purchasing smartphone location and internet activity records about people in the United States without court orders.
Government agencies have yet to be transparent about their purchase of Americans' sensitive information without court orders -- and yet this policy debate is already long overdue. Investigations by members of Congress and the media have already produced disturbing details. Most recently, Vice's Motherboard revealed that "multiple branches of the US military and a civilian law enforcement agency have bought access to a powerful internet monitoring tool that claims to cover over 90 percent of the world's internet traffic," including "people's email data, browsing history," and other types of information that experts describe as "everything."
These investigations and reports have also revealed: (1) government claims that data brokers are not bound by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act's carefully crafted privacy protections, which otherwise prohibit the government from buying this information; (2) the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusion that it may purchase location information in bulk, even when that information includes Americans' data, despite the Supreme Court's holding in Carpenter v. US; and (3) the agencies exploiting the loopholes in question include at least the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Most relevant to the Jacobs-Davidson amendment is the Department of Defense's ongoing refusal to disclose information that it has already determined is not classified: which Defense components are buying information about Americans' smartphone location and internet activity.
The purchase of information that would otherwise require a court order to obtain has critical implications for Americans' constitutional rights. Quite simply, despite having no Congressional or judicial authorization, the executive branch has taken the position that if it buys data, Americans have no privacy rights at all.
Transparency is crucial to ensuring the exploitation of this loophole does not further outpace Congressional, judicial, and public oversight. Accordingly, we urge you to ensure the Jacobs-Davidson amendment remains in the NDAA by including the Wyden-Daines amendment to the Senate NDAA and retaining this language in conference.
Sincerely,
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Prosperity
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Center For Democracy & Technology
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Demand Progress Action
Due Process Institute
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fight for the Future
Freedom House
FreedomWorks
Free Press Action
Government Information Watch
Muslim Justice League
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability
Project On Government Oversight
Restore The Fourth
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
Wikimedia Foundation
X-Lab
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
CBC Chair Rakes 'Bigoted and Racist Regime' as Trump Refuses to Apologize for Obama Ape Post
"Bigotry has been his brand since day 1," said Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.
Feb 07, 2026
As President Donald Trump refuses to apologize for a now-deleted social media post in which former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are portrayed as apes, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday blasted what she called the "bigoted and racist regime" in the White House.
“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their M.O. at this point."
After dismissing the widespread revulsion—including by some Republican lawmakers—over Trump's sharing of the racist election conspiracy video on his Truth Social network as "fake outrage," the White House subsequently claimed that an aide "erroneously made the post," which was deleted after nearly 12 hours online.
The president told reporters aboard Air Force one Friday evening, "I didn't make a mistake" and that he is the "least racist president you've had in a long time."
Trump launched his political career by amplifying the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and his 2016 presidential campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists." Since then, he has made numerous bigoted statements about racial minorities, immigrants, Muslims, women, and others.
Brushing off the administration's explanation for Trump's post, Clarke said that "they don’t tell the truth."
"If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from," she contended.
"Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning," the congresswoman added. "It’s beneath all of us."
Asked what it means that Trump—who rarely retracts anything—deleted the post, Clarke said, "I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass."
"As my mother would say," she added, "'Too late. Mercy’s gone.'"
Civil rights groups also condemned Trump, with Color of Change posting on Facebook that "this is white supremacy expressed from the Oval Office."
"Trump resents what the Obamas represent: A Black family that is accomplished, respected, and widely admired," the group continued. "Their success contradicts the worldview he has spent years promoting. His attacks follow a clear trajectory—from birther conspiracies questioning Obama's legitimacy, to false accusations of treason, to now circulating imagery rooted in centuries of racial dehumanization used to justify slavery, lynching, and violence."
"Republican leadership has been silent," Color of Change added. "Elected officials who refuse to condemn this behavior are choosing to normalize it."
NAACP president Derrick Johnson said in a statement that "Donald Trump's video is blatantly racist, disgusting, and utterly despicable."
Johnson asserted that Trump is attempting to distract from the cost of living crisis and Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
"You know who isn't in the Epstein files? Barack Obama," he said. "You know who actually improved the economy as president? Barack Obama."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Denies DHS Bid to Quickly Deport Family of 5-Year-Old Liam Conejo Ramos
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," said an advocate for the family.
Feb 07, 2026
The Trump administration's bid to expedite deportation proceedings against 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family faltered Friday as a judge granted them more time to plead their asylum case.
Danielle Molliver, an attorney for Ramos' family, told CNN that a judge issued a continuance in the case, meaning it is postponed to a later date.
The US Department of Homeland Security filed a motion Wednesday seeking to fast-track the Ecuadorian family's deportation. The family responded by asking the court for additional time to reply to the DHS motion.
Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights Public Schools, where Ramos is a student, told CNN that Friday’s ruling “provides additional time, and with that, continued uncertainty for a child and his family."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," Stenvik added. "We will continue to advocate for outcomes that prioritize children."
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Ramos and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, in the driveway of their Columbia Heights home on January 20 during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's ongoing deadly immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities.
They were taken to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center southwest of San Antonio, Texas. Run by ICE and private prison profiteer CoreCivic, the facility has been plagued by reports of poor health and hygiene conditions and accusations of inadequate medical care for children.
Detainees report prison-like conditions and say they’ve been served moldy food infested with worms and forced to drink putrid water. Some have described the facility as “truly a living hell.”
Ramos, who fell ill during his detention in Dilley, and his father were ordered released earlier this month on a federal judge's order, and is now back in Minnesota.
Molliver accused the Trump administration of retaliating against the family following their release. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that “there is nothing retaliatory about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws."
Arias told Minnesota Public Radio Friday that he is uncertain about his family's future.
"The government is moving many pieces, it's doing everything possible to do us harm, so that they’ll probably deport us," he said. "We live with that fear too."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who helped accompany Ramos and his father back to Minnesota, said at a Friday news conference that DHS "should leave Liam alone."
“His family came in legally through the asylum process,” Castro said. “And when I left the Dilley detention center, one of the ICE officers explained to me that his father was on a one-year parole in place, so they should allow that to continue.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Awful News for Due Process' as Court Backs Trump's Mass Immigrant Detention
"This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people," one critic noted.
Feb 07, 2026
A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration's policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.
A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump's reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.
"The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations," Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. "That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that "the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did."
This is a very, very bad decision from one of the two Reagan judges left on the Fifth Circuit, joined by one of the two most extreme Trump appointees on the court.And, it is about the issue I walked through at Law Dork earlier this week, in the context of Minnesota: www.lawdork.com/i/186796727/...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 6:50 PM
"Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border," Douglas added. "No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported."
Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.
Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.
However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.
According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration's interpretation of ICE's detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.
While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday's ruling as a "significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn," some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.
"AWFUL news for due process," American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday's ruling. "This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE."
While Friday's ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration's detention policy in courts across the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular