Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

An American flag flies outside of the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, on Jan. 15, 2020.

Tom Brenner/Reuters

Democrats on Thursday pulled legislation from the House floor to extend FBI surveillance authorities after President Donald Trump and Republicans turned against the measure and ensured its defeat. The House later voted 284-122 to officially start those negotiations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there instead would be a new round of negotiations with the Senate over the expired powers the FBI considers vital in fighting terrorism. The House later voted 284-122 to officially start those negotiations.

The impasse raised the potential for the surveillance powers to remain expired indefinitely. The provisions, which lapsed in March, allow the FBI to get a court order for business records in national security investigations and conduct surveillance on subjects without establishing they’re acting on behalf of an international terrorism organization. They also make it easier for investigators to continue eavesdropping on a subject who has switched cellphone providers to thwart detection.

Story continues below advertisement

A bill renewing those authorities passed the Senate with 80 votes earlier this month, and it appeared on track for easy passage. The House had overwhelmingly supported a similar measure in March with the support of 126 Republicans. That bill was a compromise worked out between the two parties and Attorney General William Barr.

But the compromise crumbled this week as Trump threatened a veto and House Republicans who had once voted for the bill quickly followed his lead.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, who praised the bill in March and said it included “important reforms” to guard against abuses, reversed that stance when Trump said he opposed it. On Thursday, McCarthy said Congress should “take a pause.”

Pelosi criticized Republicans for the about-face, noting that some were praising the legislation as recently as Wednesday morning. She said that as soon as the president made his views known, “the commitment to national security disappeared.”

Without a veto-proof majority, Pelosi said, the House would not attempt to pass the measure and instead start direct negotiations. Democrats had scheduled a vote on the legislation Wednesday but adjourned without holding it as it became clear the votes were not there. Dozens of House Democrats were opposed to the bill.

McCarthy said he supported the move to renew negotiations, saying that was “the appropriate thing to do.”

In threatening a veto, Trump cited his frustration with surveillance practices during the Russia investigation, which he refers to as a witch hunt.

Story continues below advertisement

On Twitter Thursday, Trump praised “GREAT Republican Congressmen & Congresswomen” who blocked the bill “that would just perpetuate the abuse that produced the Greatest Political Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt. Fantastic Job!”

An inspector general report documented serious mistakes in how the FBI used its authorities during its probe into ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia, though it said the FBI was justified in opening the investigation and found no evidence that it acted with political bias. The problems documented included errors and omissions in applications the FBI submitted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser.

Republicans have historically been hawkish on preserving surveillance powers in the name of national security, and the powers up for renewal aren’t directly related to the errors that were uncovered during the Russia investigation.

But Trump has used the legislation to criticize the investigation, which eventually was turned over to special counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between his campaign and Russia but said it could not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice.

Complicating matters on the surveillance bill were new objections from the Justice Department and old divisions within the Democratic Party. The department said it opposed a Senate add to the bill that would attempt to boost protections for some surveillance subjects, and Democrats who have long opposed surveillance laws reiterated on Wednesday that they wouldn’t support the bill.

The only difference between the House and Senate bills is the amendment adopted by the Senate with 77 votes. That bipartisan language, sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, would allow more third-party oversight to protect people in some surveillance cases.

Story continues below advertisement

The Justice Department said Wednesday that the amended Senate version of the bill would “weaken national security tools while doing nothing to address the abuses” identified by the inspector general’s report.

And the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has about 70 Democratic House members, reiterated Wednesday that they’d oppose the bill, saying the legislation doesn’t do enough to protect Americans’ privacy.

“We cannot in good conscience vote for legislation that violates Americans’ fundamental right to privacy,” said the progressive caucus’ leaders, Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies