The once-secret Section 702 program that permits warrantless wiretaps inside the United States is on the verge of failing reauthorization. Facing resistance from liberal Democrats and Republican House members who are challenging the FBI’s authority to interfere in US elections, Section 702 seems, at a minimum, to face a substantial rewrite if it survives the December deadline for reauthorization at all.

“There’s no way we’re going to be for reauthorizing that in its current form — no possible way,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, a key ally of Mr. Trump’s who is leading a special House investigation to into the “weaponization” of government against conservatives. “We’re concerned about surveillance, period.”

…

“You couldn’t waterboard me into voting to reauthorize 702,” said Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, who backed the program in 2018. “These 702 authorities were abused against people in Washington on January 6 and they were abused against people who were affiliated with the B.L.M. movement, and I’m equally aggrieved by both of those things.”

Even Democrats are reluctant to go to bat for a program that would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States.

The administration has signaled it is open to discussing other changes in theory. But officials from the F.B.I. and Justice Department pushed back this month on specific proposals during their first public appearance on Capitol Hill to discuss the matter, rankling lawmakers.

“I don’t have any doubt about the foreign intelligence value of this, but the U.S. person aspect of this is really concerning to the Congress,” Senator Jon Ossoff, Democrat of Georgia, told the officials during a hearing of the Judiciary Committee. “I don’t think you’ve effectively made the case that there shouldn’t be a warrant requirement.”

The committee chairman, Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, did not find the changes to be sufficient. “If the reforms that you’ve mentioned in 2021 and 2022 are the only reforms that you’re bringing to this committee as we discuss the future of Section 702, I’ve got to see more,” he told agency officials.

But, the usual suspects are out in force to defend the indefensible. Lindsey Graham wants to “add safeguards.”

Illinois Republican Darin LaHood has a condescending take on his colleagues who are trying to prevent the FBI from systematically abusing Section 702.

“This will be a first impression for many of them,” said Representative Darin LaHood, Republican of Illinois, a supporter of the program who is part of the Intelligence Committee’s six-member working group trying to determine how Congress can restrict the program without hamstringing it.

Of course, the “them” are the yokels who just aren’t prepared to sit at the adults’ table. That LaHook believes he has been targeted for surveillance under Section 702 makes his statement pathetic. It’s like he’s playing the role of a domestic violence victim, convinced he won’t hurt her again if she just gets her act together.

“The thought that 702 and FISA just focused on terrorism — I think that narrative has to be changed. We need to focus on China, we need to focus on Russia, we need to focus on Iran and North Korea.”

In theory, the program only allows the interception of communications of foreign nationals who are not in the United States.

As the law is written, the intelligence community cannot use Section 702 programs to target Americans, who are protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But the law gives the intelligence community space to target foreign intelligence in ways that inherently and intentionally sweep in Americans’ communications.

Though Section 702 is justified as a counterterrorism tool, in reality it permits surveillance far beyond what is needed to protect national security. It allows the government to target foreigners abroad if it believes they possess “foreign intelligence information” — a term so broadly defined that it can include ordinary information about foreign affairs that has nothing to do with national security. This means that targets of surveillance could include human rights defenders, journalists, whistleblowers, or business owners. The government collects the personal information of these individuals — including any communications they may have with people in the U.S. — and stores it in databases for years, and in some cases, indefinitely.