A powerful US surveillance law is set to expire – what happens now?

Section 702 of FISA Set to Expire on June 12 as Congress Deadlocks on Renewal

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes the collection of electronic communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States, is scheduled to lapse at midnight on June 12, 2026. The provision permits the government to obtain content from U.S. technology companies without a warrant when the target is a foreign national abroad. Communications involving U.S. persons may be acquired incidentally when they contact or are contacted by a targeted individual.

The upcoming deadline has drawn renewed attention following President Donald Trump’s announcement that Bill Pulte, currently head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would serve as acting director of national intelligence. Trump later nominated Jay Carney for the permanent position. Privacy advocates have stated that questions about the program’s scope and oversight predate the nomination and would persist regardless of the appointment.

Section 702 was enacted in 2008 and has been reauthorized multiple times. Under the statute, the government submits annual certifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court describing the categories of foreign intelligence information it seeks. Certifications approved in March 2026 remain valid through March 2027, allowing collection to continue under existing directives even if Congress does not extend the underlying statutory authority by the June 12 date.

In recent months Congress has passed only short-term extensions. Proposals for multi-year reauthorizations without additional restrictions have not advanced. A coalition of lawmakers has sought to add a warrant requirement for queries of U.S. persons’ communications stored in the Section 702 repository. An amendment containing such a requirement failed on a 212-212 tie vote in 2024. Supporters of the warrant provision say they have identified additional votes in the current Congress.

House Republican leadership has declined to schedule a vote on the warrant measure. Speaker Mike Johnson has stated that the chamber has exhausted options to prevent expiration. The House adjourned on June 12 and is not scheduled to reconvene until June 23. Johnson told reporters that the body had done everything possible to avoid a lapse.

Some members have expressed concern that a statutory gap could interrupt intelligence collection. Privacy groups counter that existing certifications and directives issued under the March 2026 approvals remain in force, limiting any immediate operational effect. Jake Laperruque of the Center for Democracy and Technology noted that the decision to adjourn without further action indicates lawmakers do not view the risk as requiring immediate legislative response.

The program’s operations have been the subject of periodic review by the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Past inspector general and court filings have documented instances in which query procedures were not followed, resulting in remedial measures and additional training requirements for analysts. Intelligence officials have described Section 702 as a primary tool for identifying foreign terrorist plots and cyber threats targeting U.S. networks.

Negotiations over the current reauthorization cycle have centered on whether to impose new restrictions on domestic queries or to extend the program under existing rules. No agreement has been reached that satisfies both the requirement for longer-term authority sought by some members and the warrant provision sought by others. The Senate has not taken up standalone legislation on the matter in the weeks preceding the deadline.

The debate over Section 702 has continued across multiple Congresses and administrations. Jason Pye of the Due Process Institute observed that the underlying questions about the program’s scope and the balance between foreign intelligence collection and protections for U.S. persons existed before the most recent nomination controversy.